Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
Faujdar Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 5340 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Pay the arrear - Nature of Mandamus - Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.3 Executive Engineer (Urban) U.P., raising all his grievance - Petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of his claim – Held, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him - Court has not applied itself on merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law - Writ petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Aditya Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 and learned standing counsel for State.
2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following principal relief:-
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case representation of petitioner for the said purposes is considered and decided in a time bound manner.
4. Learned counsel for respondents have no objection to the same.
5. In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.3 Executive Engineer (Urban), Jhansi Khand-I, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Jhansi, U.P., raising all his grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of his claim within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
6. In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.
7. It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by competent authority in accordance with law.
Court has not applied itself on merits of case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by competent authority.
Court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
The court's decision was influenced by the undisputed claim for pay fixation and arrears of pay under the 7th Pay Commission, and the financial stringency of the respondent Sugar Company Ltd.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
