Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 20 May, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90805
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7889 of 2024
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Agarwal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 6.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:-
"(i). to issue a writ, order or writ of mandamus by commanding and directing the Respondents to pay the grant of one notional increment (w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018) to the petitioner on completion of the relevant period and further to re-fix the initial pay & pensionary benefits of the petitioner after granting the one notional increment to the petitioner and further to pay the arrear of the same with interest, within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii). to issue a writ, order or writ of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the delayed payment of the aforesaid arrear of the petitioner from the due date to till the actual payment of the aforesaid funds of the petitioner."
3. It is argued by learned cunsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for one annual notional increment. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others (Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023). It is argued that in this regard a representation has already been made by him before the respondent No.2-Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Lucknow on 01.02.2024 but till date no final decision has been taken on the same.
4. On the other hand, it is argued by Shri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the contesting respondents that in case, the petitioner will move fresh representation ventilating all their grievances before the respondent No.2, he will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the matter expeditiously.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of directing the petitioner to move fresh representation before the respondent No.2 along with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks. In case, the petitioner will file fresh representation within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.2 will pass appropriate orders on the same most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter strictly in accordance with law.
7. Since the writ petition has been decided on an ex-parte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus the passing of the order today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter and the respondent No.2 shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024
Pramod Tripathi
