Disposed

Sunita Devi v. Distt. Magistrate Barabanki and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024WRIA/10551/2024

Download

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Sunita Devi vs Distt. Magistrate Barabanki and 4… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75226

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10551 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sunita Devi Respondent :- Distt. Magistrate Barabanki And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar,Ashish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakartri at Anganwadi Kendra, Maanpur,, Block Laharpur, District Sitapur in 1998. It is stated that at the time of her joining she was not married and subsequently got married in 2009 to one Rahul Verma, a resident of Village Gursel, Post Sarhemau, Fatehpur, District Barabanki and now she resides in Mohalla Kajipur-1, Ward No.8, Block and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It is in aforesaid circumstances that relying upon the government order dated 21.3.2023 the petitioner had given a representation to opposite party No.3 i.e. District Programme Officer, District Barabanki to adjust the services of the petitioner after her marriage to Anganwadi Kendra of Mohalla Kajipur-1, Ward No.8, Block and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It is stated that till date the said representation of the petitioner has not been decided and accordingly prayer has been made for a suitable direction to opposite party No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.5.2023, as contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, with expedition.

¶8

Learned Standing counsel does not object to the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶9

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.3 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

¶10

It has been pointed out by the Standing counsel that the case of the petitioner was not considered because she failed to annex copy of the marriage certificate and accordingly it is provided that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of her marriage

¶11

certificate along with certified copy of this order to opposite party No.3.

¶12

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 RKM.

¶14

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

Sunita Devi v. Distt. Magistrate Barabanki and 4 Others

What the court decided

Sunita Devi v. Distt. Magistrate Barabanki and 4 Others

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development Lko. and Another

Hanuman Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development Lko and Another

Uma Raman Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Development and Another

Neel Kamal Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4OTHERS

Bablu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Kumkum Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 3 Others