Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5799 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardhan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
On the oral prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to correct the array of parties in so far as the third respondent is concerned.
Heard Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondents.
Grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the writ petitioner was enrolled as a soldier in Indian Army on 24.06.1996 and discharged from service on 01.02.2015, thereafter he was appointed on the post of constable on 26.05.2019 in the U.P. Police Department, but the services rendered in Indian Army is not being computed for grant of pay protection and other ancillary benefits.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are various government orders issued from time to time being Government Order dated 26.09.1980, 22.03.1991, 07.11.2014, 30.04.2019 and 23.12.2020 already existing and occupying the field governing, on the said subject while granting benefits of previous services, but the same is being sought to be denied to the writ petitioner on the pretext that the writ petitioner has not knocked the doors of this Court by filing the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court towards the judgment in Writ-A No.32139 of 2007, Hans Nath Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 21.10.2010, Writ-A No.36642 of 2015, Hari Chand and 11 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, decided on 23.08.2016, as well as the recent judgment in Writ-A No.22125 of 2022, Subhashchand and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others decided on 06.01.2023 so as to further contend that it is the similarly situated facts that the persons sailing in the same boat were accorded the said benefits.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the issues need to be addressed at the level of the respondents herein and thus, the writ petitioner may prefer a comprehensive representation before the third respondent/ Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Uttar Pradesh, Police Headquarter, Lucknow.
Considering the submissions of the rival parties and the stand taken by the State respondents, the writ petition is disposed off without seeking any response granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the third respondent/ Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Uttar Pradesh, Police Headquarter, Lucknow, who shall accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. It is open for the petitioner to file a copy of the writ petition duly attested by him.
Subject to above, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Since the writ petition is being decided on exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus the passing of the order may not be construed that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter, as independent consideration is to be accorded by the third respondent by passing an order after considering the relevant rules and the government orders existing and occupying the field.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023
N.S.Rathour
