Disposed

Ram Chander v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024WRIA/1485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Allahabad, in a writ petition regarding employment conditions, issued a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Ayodhya, to decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks without adjudicating on the merits of the pay claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 21.08.2023 within six weeks from the date of service of this order.

Ram Chander vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17458

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1485 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Chander Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Sharma,Uttam Kumar Awasthi

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2023 and to pay a minimum pay scale to the petitioner per month on the basis of Government Order dated 08.08.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.07.2016 as a daily wage employee and since then, he has continuously been functioning on the said post, but the department is not giving him minimum payscale per month on the basis of Government order dated 08.08.2023.

¶10

It is further submitted that the petitioner, for redressal of his grievance, has made several representations and lastly the representation was made on 21.08.2023 to respondent no. 3, but till date no decision has been taken by respondent no. 3 i.e. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ayodhya Van Prabhag.

¶11

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 3 to take a decision on representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2023 within a stipulated time fame, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2023, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 DiVYa

¶15

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Chander v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chander v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devi Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mahendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Chander Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others