1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Shiv Gopal vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 January, 2019


Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15283 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shiv Gopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suryaprakash Sharma,Sheo Kinkar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Despite time having been granted twice, no counter affidavit is forthcoming.
The sole relief claimed in the instant petition is for issuing a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to decide the representation dated 6.2.2018 wherein, the prayer made by the petitioner is for releasing pension and other retiral benefits.
The petitioner claims to have retired on 30.9.2017 from the post of Collection Amin, Tehsil Sadar, district Fatehpur upon attaining age of superannuation. His initial appointment was as Collection Peon. His service on the post of Collection Peon was regularised on 8.5.2012. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Collection Amin on 16.3.2011. His services were made permanent on the post of Collection Amin on 15.3.2013 by order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur dated 24.12.2014.
According to the petitioner, he is not being paid retiral benefits on account of pendency of Writ Petition No. Nil of 1989 filed by him challenging termination of his service as Collection Peon on 20.9.1989. In the said writ petition, the operation of order dated 20.9.1989 was kept in abeyance. The specific case of the petitioner is that on account of his services being made permanent and thereafter upon being promoted to the post of Collection Amin, the said petition was rendered infructuous. The respondents cannot withhold retiral benefits by taking a stand that the petitioner continued in service on basis of an interim order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already made a representation before the respondents on 6.2.2018, but no decision is being taken thereupon. He submitted that that the respondents be directed to decide the said representation.
Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents has no objection to the same.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 6.2.2018 by means of a speaking order, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of photo copy of the said representation along with certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 30.1.2019 AM/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Shiv Gopal vs State Of U P And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

30 January, 2019
  • Manoj Kumar Gupta
  • Suryaprakash Sharma Sheo Kinkar Singh