Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16003 of 2017 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinit Kumar Srivastava,Nikhil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adarsh Bhushan
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner claims that he appeared in a selection held by the respondent Corporation for appointment as Contract Conductor. He was duly selected and was also made to undergo a training course. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his emoluments nor is being permitted to work.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sent several notices to the respondents, but no decision has been taken by them.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 very fairly stated that the second respondent is competent to take decision in regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order before the second respondent and in which event, the second respondent shall decide the same by means of a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of next three months.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 18.4.2017 AM/-