Disposed

Smt. Neelam Bajaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2024WRIA/3643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought increment due after retirement. Court permitted submission of a fresh representation to the indicating a time frame. Petition disposed of without merits adjudication. **Order Date**: 10.5.2024. **Court**: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of writ permit petitioner to submit fresh representation for decision within six weeks.

Smt. Neelam Bajaj vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36106

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3643 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Bajaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Nath,Lakhi Ram Badoni Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that despite the petitioner having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June he has not been given increment falling due on 1st July.

¶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 petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 i.e. Principal Secretary, Secretariat Administration (Establishment), Anubhag-2, Government of U.P, 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 petitioner submits an individual 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 Pachhere/-

¶14

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

Smt. Neelam Bajaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Bajaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Administration 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

Sukh Das and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Mohini Sindhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pushtahar Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

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

Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and 4 Others

Ramsajivan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another