Partly allowed

Raj Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024WRIA/7808/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought super selection grade and revised pension for Head Constable post. Court disposed of writ petition allowing liberty to file a fresh representation to Superintendent of Police with directions to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer fresh representation to Superintendent of Police, District Sultanpur; directions to authority to decide strictly per law within six weeks.

Raj Narayan Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63794

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7808 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that he may be permitted to not press prayer No.1 of the prayer clause, therefore, the same may be permitted to be deleted from the prayer clause.

¶8

3. Considering the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to delete the prayer No.1 of the prayer clause, during the course of day.

¶9

4. So far as the prayer No.2 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the petitioner has been given all admissible service benefits for the post of Constable, but no admissible service benefits for the post of Head Constable have been given to the petitioner. For convenience, the prayer No.2 is reads as under:-

¶10

"(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Police, District-Sultanpur i.e. opposite party No.4 to provide the "Super Selection Grade" and revised the pension with all consequential pensionery benefit for the post of head Constable, in the interest of justice."

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the opposite party No.4 for redressal of grievance by filing fresh representation and direction may be issued to pass appropriate order.

¶12

6. In view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, the instant writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.4 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, District-Sultanpur taking all pleas and grounds which

¶13

are available with him annexing therewith copy of his earlier representation, if any, and the relevant documents in support of his claim within a period of ten days from today, and if any such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order, with expedition preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

7. In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Suresh/

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Narayan Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khushi Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sujan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Dhoop Narayan @ Dhrup Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Govind Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Fishery Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

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

Mishri Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 2 Others