Allowed

Vikas Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024/6828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition sought a direction to appoint the petitioner on a dying-in-harness post. The High Court did not examine merits but disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the authority, which must decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to prefer a fresh representation; directed authority to decide within two months.

Vikas Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58029

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6828 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vikas Nishad

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitla Prasad Tiwari,Sandeep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jyotsana Pal, learned Chief Standing Counsel-IV for the State.

¶8

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶9

"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties, specially opposite party No.2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Plant Operator under Dyingin-Harness Rules, in the interest of justice.

¶10

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 18.06.2024 made by the petitioner before opposite party No.2 with a reasoned and speaking order, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition."

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 18.06.2024 to the opposite party No.2, but no decision has been taken on the same till date.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority, therefore, he may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority and direction may be issued him to consider and decide the said representation within a stipulated time.

¶13

5. Learned Chief Standing Counsel-IV has stated that she has no objection if direction is issued to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time.

¶14

6. In view of the above, without entering into merits of the

¶15

issue, the instant writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Electric Mechanical, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Ayodhya taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him annexing therewith copy of his earlier representation, if any, and the relevant documents in support of his claim within a period of ten days from today, and if any such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order, with expedition preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

7. It is needless to say that this is a case of providing suitable appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, therefore, if the petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions and there is no legal impediment, he may be given suitable appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules within the aforesaid stipulated time. Further, if there are some admissible dues, which have not been paid to the family members of the deceased, the same may also be paid strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

8. In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Suresh/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Deptt. Lko and Another

Syed Shakeel Ahmad Rizvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy., Public Works Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Gopal Chandra Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Sharda Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others