Disposed

Manoj Bala Mishra v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance New Delhi and Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024WRIA/19969/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting technical qualification allowances for a lateral entry MBA holder. Rather than deciding on merits, the court directed the petitioner to submit a representation accompanied by a cited judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court within two weeks, instructing authorities to consider it and pass a reasoned or

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation with cited judgment within two weeks; authority to consider it and pass reasoned orders within six weeks.

Manoj Bala Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75763

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19969 of 2021 Petitioner :- Manoj Bala Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Finance New Delhi And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Punhani,Satyavrat Shukla,Subhash Bisaria Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Anil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 & 5. Notice for respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned ASG.

¶6

Despite notice having been issued to respondent no. 4 nobody has put in appearance although as per the office report dated 01.11.2021 notice to respondent no. 4 is deemed sufficient. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 16.01.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being provided technical qualification allowances has been rejected. The further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant technical qualification allowances, increments and promotions due to him since the year and the date other similarly situated employees were promoted.

¶8

Bereft of unnecessary details the facts of the case are that the claim of the petitioner is that his claim for technical qualification allowances has been rejected by the respondent company solely on the ground that the MBA degree obtained by him has been done through lateral entry and the said qualification would not be permissible for grant of technical allowance.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Case No. C.W.P. No. 16493 of 2013 in re: Sunita Sharma and others vs The United India Insurance Company Limited and others on 05.08.2015 and thus he prays that the competent authority be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra).

¶10

To the aforesaid proposition, Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 has no objection.

¶11

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority who are said to be the respondents no. 3 and 5 within two weeks from today alongwith the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) .

¶12

In case the said representation is made within two weeks' from today the competent authority shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order upon the grievance of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶13

Needless to mention that the order impugned would be subject to the decision taken by the competent authority on the said representation.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Bala Mishra v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Bala Mishra v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance New Delhi 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

Harishchandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Jagdev Chaurasia Vs State of U.P.through Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko.and Ors.

Rohit Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko and 28 Others

Dr. Archana Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Language Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Karan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 7 Others

Raj Karan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 8 Others