Disposed¶12

Pratibha Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2025WRIA/2220/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pratibha Ranjan v. State of U.P. thru Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. (WRIT - A No. 2220 of 2025, Lucknow Bench, Abdul Moin J., 24.2.2025): charge of Officiating-Principal without salary; representation before respondent no. 3 within ten days; decision by reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; merits not examined; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a representation before respondent no. 3 within ten days; respondent no. 3 to endeavour to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the representation. ¶12

Pratibha Ranjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11561

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2220 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Pratibha Ranjan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2 & 5.

¶7

No notice need be issued to the respondent no. 4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶8

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

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having been given the charge of Officiating-Principal in the institution in question, she has not been paid salary for the post of Officiating-Principal.

¶10

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.3 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which Sri P.K.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2 & 5 has no objection.

¶11

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within ten days from today before the respondent No.3 then the respondent No.3 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Pachhere/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pratibha Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratibha Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

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

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs State U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Narayan Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. and 2 Others

Prashant Yadav and 55 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. of Lko. and 4 Others

Rati Pal Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Tele. Mini. of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Mohammad Roomi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 3 Others