Disposed

Namita Rose Dayal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024WRIA/2045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Staff nurses appointed against 2001 vacancies but after 01.04.2005 sought old pension scheme benefits via mandamus. Court did not decide merits; permitted petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Director General with a three-month timeline for decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners may submit representation within two weeks; respondent no.2 to decide by reasoned order within three months.

Namita Rose Dayal and 4 Others vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30900

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2045 of 2024 Petitioner :- Namita Rose Dayal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Nafees,Sanjai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners to be appointed prior to 01.04.2005 in pursuance to notification of vacancy of year 2001.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the vacancies were notified in the year 2001 against which the petitioners were appointed on the post of staff nurse yet their appointment is subsequent to 01.04.2005 and thus would not be entitled for the benefit of old pension scheme.

¶9

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. Director General, U.P. Medical and Health Care Services, Swasth Bhawan, Lucknow which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection.

¶10

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submits a representation 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 in accordance with law and the relevant rules within a further period of three months from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of .

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioners.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.4.2024/J. K. Dinkar

¶14

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

Namita Rose Dayal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namita Rose Dayal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare 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

Dharamveer Singh Rathor Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply and 2 Others

Mira Pushdha @ Mira Devi Pushdha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikash/Pustahar Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Development Lko.

Harshit Vaish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shanti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. and Others