Disposed

Jay Hind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to UP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam to pay revised salary difference, noting the legal issue had been settled by its predecessor orders affirmed by the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Credited copy of order produced by Managing Director, UP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknow, to decide claim within 3 months.

Jay Hind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 99 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Jay Hind Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 i.e. UP Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Lucknow to pay difference of salary in revised pay scale to the petitioners in compliance of Government Order dated 24.12.2010 within stipulated period, contained as Annexure No.1 to tze writ petition, in in the interest of justice.

¶8

Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the claim of petitioner in light of order dated 27.1.2020 & 18.4.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court, contained as Annexure Nos. 6 & 7 to the writ petition within stipulated period, in the interest of justice."

¶9

The parties agree that the issue raised in the present petition has been decided by this Court in Writ-A No.1174 of 2012 vide order dated 27.01.2020 and has been afÏrmed by the Appellate Court in Special Appeal No.2054 of 2020. The Special Leave Petition No.15487 of 2021 filed against the said orders has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid, it would serve no useful purpose to keep the petition pending.

¶11

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director, U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, 19-B Vibhuti Khand Gomati Nagar, Lucknow to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 Anurag/-

¶14

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

Jay Hind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Hind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lachchhi Ram Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Ravi Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs District Magistrate Sultanpur and Anr.

Shatrohan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Lko. and 3 Others

Mahendra Yadav S/O Ram Anjor Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Sericulture and Ors.

Pardip Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt of Cooperation and Ors.