Disposed

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2025WRIA/2863/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent competent authority to decide a petitioner's outstanding salary representation regarding his termination in the higher education sector within a fixed period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to decide a petitioner's representation regarding outstanding salary within two weeks from submission and eight weeks thereafter.

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15177

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2863 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Ranjit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhineet Jaiswal

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State No.1 to 3 and Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. No notice is being issued to respondent No.5 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶7

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

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to press the prayer no.1 and prays that the writ petition may be dismissed so for as it relates to prayer no.1.

¶9

The writ petition is dismissed so far as it relates to prayer no.1.

¶10

The contention is that despite the petitioner who is working and discharging his duties on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) now Assistant Professor (Sociology), he has not been paid his salary since 26.12.1996.

¶11

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had been appointed by the Committee of Management as Lecturer (Sociology) but his services were terminated by the Principal of the Institution.

¶12

After a spate of litigation, which ultimately culminated in the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.2607 of 2004, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, termination order itself was held to be against the rules, however, question of liability of payment of the salary of the petitioner was left open and it was provided that in case any such claim or demand was made by the Management in that eventuality a decision would be called for according to law.

¶13

It is contended that the Management has sent claim of the petitioner to the competent authority of the State Government as emerges from perusal of the forwarding letter dated 01.09.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, yet no decision has been taken by the competent authority in this regard till date.

¶14

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 learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶15

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.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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 prateek

¶19

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

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kuldeep Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Chhaya Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Krishan Lal Batra Vs U.O.I Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

M/s. India Housing, through its Authorized Representative Shri Virendra Nath Shukla vs M/s. Quest Retail Private Ltd., through its Director, Ashok Patni

Ram Prasad vs Shivendra Pratap Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Bsa), Deptt. of Basic Education, Raebareli

Madhav and Others vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko.