Smt.Manorama Devi vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2565 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4578 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt.Manorama Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following principal reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the petitioner's salary from 30.06.2015 up to her rejoining i.e. 17.10.2015.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to revise the pension of the petitioner according to the 7th pay commission and pay the arrears."

Learned counsel for petitioner states 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. Learned counsel for petitioner also states that entire controversy is also decided by judgment of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2017 passed in Writ A No.33360 of 2017 (Angad Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others).

Learned counsel for respondents has no objection to the same.

In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur raising all her grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures, certified copy of this order, copy of judgment in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) and all the documents in support of her claim within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.

In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same also taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Angad Yadav (supra) 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.

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.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 18.2.2021

Shubhankar

(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)