Disposed

Narendra Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024/8340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tube-well Operators sought direction for old pension benefits counting pre-regularization service, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. Without deciding merits, the court permitted a fresh representation to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, to be decided by speaking and reasoned order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file fresh representation within 10 days; authority directed to decide it by reasoned order within six weeks.

Narendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65907

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8340 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Narendra Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhas Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tushar Verma, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the opposite parties to allow the old pension benefits to the petitioners by considering/ counting their long services rendered in the department before regularization on the post of Tube-well Operator w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment.

¶9

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for pensionery benefits by providing the benefit of the judgment and order dated 02.09.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019; Prem Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶10

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that ends of justice would suffice if they are allowed to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2 and the same may be directed to dispose it of with speaking and reasoned order within stipulated time.

¶12

With the consent of parties learned counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶13

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, the petitioners are permitted to move a fresh representation within 10 days before the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Engineer-in-chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Sinchai Bhawan, Cantt. Road, Lucknow enclosing therewith their earlier representations, if any, along with all relevant documents which are available with them in support of their claim, and if such a representation is

¶14

moved byt he petitioners within the aforesaid stipulated time, the competent authority concerned is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶15

The competent authority shall communicate the decision of the representation to the petitioners forthwith.

¶16

Writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Shravan

¶18

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

Narendra Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samsuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko and Another

Dr. Arvind Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Shaad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sectt. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Haidar Dharikar Alias Haidar Banbanshi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ranveer Singh @ Banti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.