Dismissed

Rahis v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2024WRIA/3695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions for granting minimum pay-scale and arrears under the 7th Pay Commission. The court directed the Deputy Director to consider and decide the pending representation within two months, referring to a prior judgment on the same subject.

What did the court decide?

The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2024 within two months of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Rahis vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3695 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahis

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tushar Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Present writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 2-The Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Pallia Kala, Lakhimpur Kheri to forthwith grant the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 18,000/- as per 7th Pay Commission alongwith arrears since March, 2018 in terms of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2018 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 11964 of 2018 (Mohan Swaroop and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Class-IV post in January, 2011 and he has continuously been functioning on the said post. After coming of 7th Pay Commission, the petitioner has made representation dated 06.04.2024 before respondent no. 2 for grant of minimum of pay scale of Rs. 18000/as per 7th Pay Commission but no decision has been taken by the respondent no. 2 and the matter is still pending.

¶9

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that respondent no. 2 may be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner mentioned hereinabove within the time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.04.2024 in accordance with law and keeping in view the judgment and order dated 17.11.2018 passed by this Court in the case of Mohan Swaroop (supra) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Pachhere/-

¶13

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

Rahis v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahis v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

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

Sri Krishna Pandey Vs Thestate of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Industries Development Deptt. Anubhag-I Lucknow and Others

Puran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Jageshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 5 Others