Disposed

Vijendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/7995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a daily wager since 2007, sought a writ of Mandamus for minimum pay scale. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, granting liberty to prefer a fresh representation to the Deputy Director within 10 days for consideration within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer fresh representation to Deputy Director within 10 days; authority to decide within six weeks by reasoned order.

Vijendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64158

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7995 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vijendra Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Forest Lko. And 2 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Wasim Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Wasim Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Narendra Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

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

¶10

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to provide the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner. "

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is serving as the daily wager w.e.f. 2007. He has further submitted that for redressal of the grievance, the petitioner has preferred representation to the competent authority but to no avail, therefore, he may be given liberty to prefer a fresh representation to the competent authority and a direction may be issued to consider and dispose of the same with expedition.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection, if a direction for disposal of the representation is issued.

¶13

Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.3 i.e., Deputy Director, Dudhwa National Tiger Reserve, Palia, Kheri ventilating his

¶14

grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copy of his earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of 10 days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law and also in light of the dictum of the Apex Court in re: Sabha Shankar Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer reported in AIR 2019 SC 220 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Shravan

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko and 2 Others

Keshav Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Raj Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Meva Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Harikesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others