Disposed¶11

Anju v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025WRIA/21050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - A No. 21050 of 2024; Court No. 5; Ajay Bhanot J.; 2025:AHC:1977; petitioner Anju; safai karmchari; Health Department; Kanpur Nagar Nigam; Nagar Ayukta; State of U.P.; Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.); representation to be decided as per law; three-month deadline; certified copy of order; fresh copy of representation; counsel Dinesh Kumar; C.S.C.; Harshit Pandey; Syed Shanawar holding brief; writ petition disposed of; order date 6.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a directive to respondent No.2 (Nagar Ayukta, Kanpur Nagar Nigam) to decide the petitioner's A.C.P. representation as per law within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order together with a fresh copy of the representation. ¶11

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Anju, a safai karmchari in the Health Department at Kanpur Nagar Nigam, is entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.), and whether her pending representation in this regard should be decided by the competent authority.

¶7

Court's answer

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

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 21050 of 2024 (Court No. 5), Allahabad High Court; decided 6.1.2025 by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J. (neutral citation 2025:AHC:1977). Petitioner Anju, serving as safai karmchari in the Health Department at Kanpur Nagar Nigam, claimed entitlement to Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) and had made an unanswered representation. Respondents' counsel (Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-State and counsel for respondent No.2-Nagar Ayukta) submitted that factual determination by the competent authority was required first, while conceding the service benefit would be decided in a reasonable time frame. Without entering into merits, the court ordered respondent No.2-Nagar Ayukta, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar to decide the representation regarding grant of A.C.P. as per law within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order along with a fresh copy of the representation; the writ petition was finally disposed of accordingly. No statute or precedent is cited in the judgment.

Anju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju 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

Similar cases

Naresh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amarnath Saini and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Subodh Rana and 2 Others vs Shri Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep Chauhan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raghuraj Singh and 21 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil Raikwar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others