This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10273 of 2024
Petitioner :- Awadesh Kumar Srivastava And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Agrawal,Alok Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government.
So far as interim relief is concerned, there is consensus at bar that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 5617 of 2024 Inre; Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors dated 25.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition.
Considering the aforesaid consensus, it is provided that the petitioners shall also be entitled for the benefit of the order passed in the case of Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and ors (supra).
It is also provided that till the next date of listing, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioners.
Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter along with Writ-A No. 5617 of 2024 Inre; Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava and ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024 Pachhere/-
Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Awadesh Kumar Srivastava And Others
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko And 2 Others
Abdul Moin
Satyendra Singh Pachhere
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court