Disposed

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024WRIA/6964/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ to sanction an increment and consequential pension benefits for retired employees. The High Court disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director within a time limit specified in the order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director.

Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs U.P. Jal Nigam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58361

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6964 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Kapoor,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.3 & 4 and Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 & 2.

¶8

Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶9

"(i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction one increment to the Petitioner which fell payable to him on 01/07/2019 (since the same was earned by him on 30/06/2019, on completing one year of satisfactory and efficiently service during the year 2018-19 for the period from 01/07/2018 to 30/06/2019), irrespective of the fact that the Petitioner had retired on 30/06/2019 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶10

(ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner consequential service benefits including arrears of pension arising out of sanction of increment to him.

¶11

(iii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay interest at rate of SBI MCLR+1% on the arrear amount (arising out of grant of increment on 01/07/2019) from 01/07/2019 the date on which it fell payable up to the date on which the same is actually paid to the Petitioner.

¶12

(iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶13

(v) To award the cost in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents."

¶14

For the aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation but seeks liberty to file a fresh representation before competent authority. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same.

¶15

Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before

¶16

opposite party No.3 i.e. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of .

¶18

Order Date : - 28.8.2024 Subodh/-

¶19

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

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply U.P. Lko. and Others

Yogendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Kul Vibhor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Basic Education) Lko. and Others

Krihsna Gopal Verma vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Mini. Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Avadhesh Kumar @ Avadhesh Verma vs Assistant Commissioner / Assistant Registrar Dist. Ambedkar Nagar and 2 Others

Gyanendra Bahadur Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications and 2 Others