Disposed

Doodh Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2024WRIA/3249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought mandamus for payment of pension and retiral dues based on service from 1986 to 2022. Court directed petitioner to submit a fresh representation to be decided within a fixed timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit fresh representation to be decided by District Magistrate within fixed timeframe.

Doodh Nath Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36324

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3249 of 2024 Petitioner :- Doodh Nath Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 pay pension and other retiral dues computing total service length from the date of appointment 05.06.1986 for the post of collection Amin to date of retirement i.e. on 30.11.2022 for the post of Revenue Inspector.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter in issue is squarely covered by a judgement of this Court dated 22.04.2024 passed in Writ A No. 1367 of 2022 in re: Deependra Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. and others.

¶9

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. District Magistrate, District Amethi 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 petitioner 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 six weeks 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 petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.5.2024/J. K. Dinkar

¶14

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

Doodh Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doodh Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 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

Ramakant Rawat and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Dinesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Smt Gyanwati Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager North Central Railway Headquarter Office, Prayagraj and Others

National Highway Authority of India, Thru. Its Project Director vs M/S Raj Filing Station by Shakeel Ahmad

Seema Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Culture, Lucknow and 2 Others

M/s Mayur Developers thru Raju Agarwal vs M/s Ankit Buildtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director and others