Disposed

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

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WRIA/5311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court, without delving into merits, directed the Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, to consider and decide the petitioner's representation for pay revision as per the 7th Pay Commission within two months, keeping in view a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 09.05.2024 within two months.

Nrapendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47899

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5311 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nrapendra Singh 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 Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondent no.2- 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) and with further prayer to consider and decide the representation dated 09.05.2024.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Class-IV post in May, 2016 and he has continuously been functioning on the said post. After coming of 7th Pay Commission, the petitioner has made representation dated 09.05.2024 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

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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 09.05.2024 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.

¶13

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Arnima

¶15

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nrapendra Singh 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

Kailash Chandra Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow

Ratnakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Anjali Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Excise Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others