Disposed

Ram Jatan Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog and Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024/7025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding unpaid salary, provident fund, gratuity, and leave encashment for the period 05.05.1986 to 31.01.1991. The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent no. 4 within two weeks for redressal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a representation to respondent no. 4 within two weeks; respondent no. 4 to decide within four weeks.

Ram Jatan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72973

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7025 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Jatan Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog And Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uttam Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4.

¶7

At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit.

¶8

The aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length confines his prayer by contending that despite the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 having indicated that invariably all the payments have been made but for the period from 05.05.1986 to 31.01.1991 the salary, provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment have not been paid.

¶10

The contention is that the order impugned dated 16.07.2022 itself indicates that the matter for the said period does not pertain to respondent no.2 and thus it is contended that although the matter pertains to respondent no.4 as such there cannot be any ground for respondent no.4 to sit over the matter.

¶11

Sri U.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4, states that in case the petitioner submits a representation in this regard then the same would be considered by respondent no.4 in accordance with law.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid fair submission on the part of respondent no.4 instant petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation for redressal of his grievance to respondent no.4 for the aforesaid period from 05.05.1986 to 31.01.1991 within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is submitted then

¶13

respondent no.4 shall proceed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 A. Katiyar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Jatan Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog and Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Jatan Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog and Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Nalkoop Irrigation Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/a Paduka Multi Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thru Auth. Signatory Archana Srivastava vs M/S Spencers Retail Ltd. Thru Its General Manager U.P. East

Onkar Nath Chaturvedi Vs Gramin Bank of Aryavart Thru Chairman Head Office Lko and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and Anr.

Smt. Arun Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamaik Edu. Lko and Others

Smt. Jaya Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others