Disposed

Shekhar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WRIA/10098/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a Class-IV employee seeking promotion. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the Joint Director of Education, who must decide within three months after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Joint Director of Education, who must consider the grievance within three months.

Shekhar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113274

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10098 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shekhar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Shukla,Shivanshi Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Manoj Srivastave learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶7

In view of the order which is being to be passed, notices are not being issued to the respondent nos.5 and 6.

¶8

The writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Class-IV employee in 4th respondent institution Smt. Sukhdevi Inter College, Hasanpur, Amroha on 02.03.2009. The writ petitioner further claims that Class-III post are lying vacant since February, 2023, however, despite the fact the writ petitioner is eligible and qualified, he has not been considered for promotion, however, the 6th respondent is junior to the writ petitioner has been considered for promotion. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the issues with the writ petitioner seeks to raise needs determination at the first instance by the second respondent Joint Director of Education XII Region, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, second respondent, who shall accord consideration.

¶10

To such a submission learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection.

¶11

Considering the submission of the rival parties stand taken by them, the writ petition stands disposed of requiring the granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the second respondent raising his grievance. In case such a grievance raised, the same shall be considered by the second respondent or any other authority empowered under the statute after hearing the writ petitioner as well as fourth, fifth and sixth respondent within a

¶12

period of three months strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Jitendra

¶15

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shekhar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Dileep Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Vinod and 4 Others vs State of Up and 13 Others

Mohan Lal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Firozabad and 5 Others

Smt Nivedita Shankar Pandey vs State of Up and 10 Others

Abdul Majid vs State of Up and 4 Others

Sunil Shukla and Another vs District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh and 2 Others