Allowed

Aakriti Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024WRIA/13084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition challenging certain Government Orders and a direction, holding the petitioner entitled to benefits under a coordinate bench judgment and directing compliance with that judgment's directions.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher, permission to work and salary payment as per directions in the coordinate bench judgment.

Aakriti Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46670

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13084 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Aakriti Srivastava

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Mridula Saxena,Prabhat Kumar,Vinay Prajapati Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ranvijay Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel counsel for opposite parties 3 and 6.

¶8

Counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.3 filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Petition has been filed challenging paragraph 3(1) of Government Order dated 04.12.2020, para 2(2) of Government Order dated 05.03.2021 and consequential order dated 28.03.2021 along with a direction to concerned authorities to restore petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher and permit her to work and for payment of salary.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a similar issue has already been adjudicated upon by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed in WRIT - A No. - 4871 of 2021 [Neetu v. State of U.P. and others] wherein also the same Government Orders were under challenge.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite parties admits that the aforesaid judgment in Neetu(supra) pertains to a similar issue and has already been complied with. It is submitted that while in the case of Neetu(supra), appointment letter had not been issued, in the case of petitioner,the appointment letter had been

¶12

issued, which is the only distinguishing feature.

¶13

In view thereof, petitioner is held entitled to the benefits granted by judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 as passed in Neetu(supra). Compliance thereof, shall be ensured as per directions issued in that petition as well in case of the petitioner.

¶14

Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 kvg/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aakriti Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakriti Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Neha Srivastava Vs State Bank of India Thru. Chief General Manager Lucknow Circle Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Rakhi Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and Another

Rishabh Kashyap Vs Managing Director U.P. Mahila Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Tripathi Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 Others