Subhash Chandra Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Subhash Chandra Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to submit a representation before respondent no.1 within two weeks; respondent no.1 directed to endeavour to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order along with the representation. Merits of the claim not examined by the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a representation before respondent no.1 seeking grant of A.C.P. benefit due since his retirement, and whether respondent no.1 should be directed to decide that representation within a fixed time frame.

Court's answer

In case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks before respondent no.1, respondent no.1 shall endeavour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with the representation.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioner.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.), WRIT - A No. - 11058 of 2024, Order Date 29.1.2025. Petitioner, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2013, contended that the A.C.P. benefit due to him was withheld on account of disciplinary proceedings which were dropped vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure-12 to the petition), and that no decision had since been taken on grant of A.C.P. from the date it became due. With consent of counsel, the writ petition was decided finally: the petitioner was permitted to submit a representation before respondent no.1 within two weeks, and respondent no.1 was directed to endeavour to decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order along with the representation. The Court expressly made clear that it had not gone into the merits of the claim. Writ petition disposed of; no precedent cited; no question of law settled on the merits of the A.C.P. claim.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6030

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11058 of 2024

Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Lko And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma,Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jogendra Nath Verma

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2 . With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.

3 . Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2013 the benefit of A.C.P. which was due at that stretch of time had not been given on account of disciplinary proceedings, which have been dropped vide order dated 09.01.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the petition, yet no decision has been taken by the respondents pertaining to grant of the A.C.P. from the date it became due.

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the respondent no.1 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned counsels for the respondents have no objection.

5 . In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before the respondent no.1 then the respondent no.1 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

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

7 . It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioner.

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 prateek

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench