Sri Narendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 2837 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32294 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Sri Narendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Singh,Alok Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

We have heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The petitioner claiming himself to be retired Principal of Regional Rural Development Institute Barraut, Baghpat has approached this Court with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to pay amended pension/family pension and arrears in pursuance of permitted 'Third Assured Career Progression (A.C.P).

It is contended that the petitioner is covered within the corner of the letter dated 12.04.2017 issued by the Director General, Deen Dayal Uphadhyay, State Rural Development Institute, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow, and entitled for third ACP, but that has yet not been paid to the petitioner. It is contended that in this regard petitioner has already filed a representation before respondent no.1 on 15.10.2015 but nothing has been done. Hence this writ petition.

On being confronted as to who is the competent authority for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 is the competent authority.

Considering the aforesaid submissions the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file application/representation along with certified copy of the order of this Court before respondent no.2 for redressal of his grievance. In case, such an application/representation is filed by the petitioner, the decision thereon shall be taken authority concerned by passing a reasoned speaking order, in accordance with law, within ten weeks. After the decision, in case the respondent no.2 finds that the petitioner is entitled for amount claimed, the payment shall be ensured within further period of eight weeks. In case, the respondent no.2 finds that nothing is to be paid, reasons for the same may be recorded.

It may be clarified that we have not addressed ourselves on the merit of the matter and it will be in the sole domain of the respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 31.7.2017

Swati