Disposed

Shyam Sunder Prajapati v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024WRIA/11333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking arrears of salary and pension enhancement, the court permitted a fresh representation to the District Basic Education Officer within three weeks, directing a decision within six weeks. It reserved rights, deciding based on ex parte grounds without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Permited petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no.4; directed respondent to decide within six weeks if representation is filed within three weeks.

Shyam Sunder Prajapati vs State of Up and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143187

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11333 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Prajapati Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Prakash,Prabhat Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manvendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the date 07.11.2015 as 17.11.2015 in the writ petition during the course of the day.

¶7

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 4.

¶8

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶9

"i- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to ensure payment of salary by way of arrears for the period 1-7-2015 to 17-11-2015 taking into consideration of the order dated 07-11-2015 directing re-employment of the petitioner, further relief is sought for enhancement in amount of pension accordingly as well as for release of other consequential benefit in reference to payment of salary for claimed period."

¶10

It is argued that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 19.08.2017 . He also placed reliance upon the Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2017 (Babadin Yadav (Inre 5378 S/S 2015) vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Basic Education & 4 others). It is argued that large number of similarly situated persons has already been paid salary for the aforesaid period but inspite of the fact that repeatedly representations were made by the petitioner but no action has been taken till date.

¶11

On the other hand, it is argued by Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, Mahoba that decision will be taken in the matter by the respondent no.4, expeditiously.

¶12

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to move a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.4, District Basic Education Officer, Mahoba within a period of three weeks from today along-with certified copy of this order. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.4 within the time indicated hereinabove, he is directed to take a decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner before him.

¶14

Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus the passing of the order today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter and the competent authority shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Swati

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Sunder Prajapati v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Prajapati v. State of Up and 3 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

Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Saraswati Shiksha Sadan Intermediate College and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ramakant Gupta vs State of Up and 8 Others

Ram Sajivan Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Adhar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Laxmi Pandey vs State of Up and 5 Others