Allowed

Deepak Tandon v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024WRIA/2634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought one annual increment earned for service till 30.06.2019, before superannuation. Counsel relied on precedents approved by the Supreme Court; respondents did not dispute coverage. The court issued mandamus to grant the increment and allowed the petition at admission stage, parties bearing own costs.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus commanding opposite parties to grant petitioner one annual increment admissible w.e.f. 01.07.2019; petition allowed at admission stage, no costs.

Deepak Tandon vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27673

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2634 of 2024 Petitioner :- Deepak Tandon Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Prashast Puri

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gyanendra Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, State counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Prashast Puri, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to grant one annual increment to which the petitioner has earned by rendering services from Ist July 2018 till 30th June 2019 whereafter he superannuated and became entitled for the increment with effect from Ist July, 2019.

¶8

Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this court in the case of P.P. Pandey versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 2021(1)ADJ 646 which has been followed by another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh and others versus Union of India and other, reported in (2021)4 AWC 3182 which has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & others versus C.P. Mundinamani and others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 296.

¶9

Learned State Counsel and Sri Prashast Puri, counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 also do not dispute the fact that petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶10

Considering the said factors, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to grant benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of P.P. Pandey (supra) with regard to grant of one annual increment to which he had become admissible on Ist July, 2019.

¶11

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Mayank

¶13

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

Deepak Tandon v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Tandon v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Personnel Lko. 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

Noorul Haq Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Neelam Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Umesh Dutt Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Edu. Research Lko and 3 Others

Aayushi Jain Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Higher Education, Ministry of Edu., New Delhi and Others

Satish Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. City Development Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others