Disposed

Kallu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024WRIA/10911/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a writ petition regarding the re-fixation of petitioners' salary. The court directed the respondent to consider fresh individual representations and decide them via a reasoned order within three months, explicitly stating the merits were not examined.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider fresh representations and pass a reasoned order within three months

Kallu and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76880

¶2

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10911 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kallu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran And Videsh Vyapar Anubhag-1, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushagra Kanodia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Pratap Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ajeet Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondetns No.2 and 3.

¶5

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

¶6

3 . The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the objections made by the petitioners for re-fixation their salary in accordance to the judgment and order dated 14.01.2020 passed by this court in Writ A No.6654 of 2018 In Re Birendra Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit fresh representations before respondent no.2 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned counsels for respondents have no objection.

¶8

5. In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit individual representations within two weeks from today before respondent no.2, then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months from the date of submission of the representations along with certified copy of this order.

¶9

6. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶10

7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 prateek

¶12

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kallu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Neeraj Jain Vs University of Lucknow Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Km. Farha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. and Ors.

Shiva Nand Yadav and 33 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamini Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education and Others

Kallu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipran and Videsh Vyapar ANUBHAG-1, Lko. and 2 Others

Bindeshwari Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 2 Others