Disposed

Smt. Chandravati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024WRIA/6587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding pension and service benefits, the Allahabad High Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh representation with the Transport Commissioner and directed the concerned authority to dispose of it with a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation; authority directed to dispose of it with reasoned order within 6 weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56667

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6587 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Chandravati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Akela Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Akela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to release the pension as well as all service benefits in favour of the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 23.3.2024 made by the petitioner contained in Annexure No.1 by a speaking and reasoned order within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for redressal of the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner has preferred representation to the competent authority, but to no avail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation before opposite party no.2 and this Court may direct opposite party no.2 to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has no objection if direction for disposal of the representation is issued.

¶12

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, the petitioner is permitted to prefer a fresh representation to opposite party no.2 i.e. Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow taking all pleas and grounds, which are necessary for disposal of the representation and also enclosing the earlier representation, if any, alongwith certified copy of this order within a period of ten days from today. If such representation is

¶13

preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner by speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, with expedition, say within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and thereafter communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 RBS/-

¶17

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

Smt. Chandravati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandravati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Transport 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

Dilip Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services and Another

Dinesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Shyam Narayan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Services Lko and Another

Smt. Tripti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Lucknow and 2 Others

Harishchandra Gupta and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water, Lko

Balwan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others