Disposed¶10

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025WRIA/1151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC 2025:AHC:16900; WRIT - A No. - 1151 of 2025; Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another; Ajay Bhanot J; Court No. 5; safai karmchari; Health Department; Kanpur Nagar Nigam; Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.); pending representation; competent authority to decide as per law within three months; certified copy of order; fresh copy of representation; writ petition finally disposed of without entering merits; decided 6.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, District-Kanpur Nagar) directed to decide the petitioner's representation regarding grant of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) as per law within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, along with a fresh copy of the representation; writ petition finally disposed of. ¶10

Rajendra vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Rajendra, serving as safai karmchari in the Health Department at Kanpur Nagar Nigam, is entitled to Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.), a matter on which his representation had gone unanswered.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case, the court directed Respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, District-Kanpur Nagar, to decide the petitioner's representation for grant of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) as per law within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, along with a fresh copy of the representation.

¶8

Key takeaways

With the above direction, the writ petition was finally disposed of.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 5 | Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:16900 | WRIT - A No. 1151 of 2025 | Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another | Coram: Ajay Bhanot, J. | Order Date: 6.2.2025 -- Petitioner, serving as safai karmchari in the Health Department at Kanpur Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, claimed entitlement to Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.); his representation in that regard went unaddressed. Counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that facts required determination by the competent authority as per law in the first instance. In light of these submissions and without going into the merits, the court directed Respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, District-Kanpur Nagar, to decide the petitioner's representation regarding grant of A.C.P. as per law within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh copy of the representation; with this direction the writ petition was finally disposed of.

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Atul Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Alias Pappu vs State of U.P.

Shashank Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others