Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 103510 (ALL)

SMT SAROJ v. State of UP AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/16019/2024 · 2025-02-23

Neeraj Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25898 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16019 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Saroj Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Srivastava,Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State- respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner pursuant to decision dated 30.05.2008 of the Selection Committee and undertaking given by the respondent no. 3 on 27.01.2010 before this Hon'ble Court in Contempt Application(Civil) No. 1447 of 2006. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to pay the entire arrear of difference of amount of salary in regular pay scale and minimum of regular pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 21.02.2002 i.e. from the date of judgment dated 21.02.2002 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. Putti lal along with interest." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his grievance, petitioner may be permitted to move fresh representation No. 3. Lastly, it is submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to decide the representation within a stipulated time. 4. Learned standing counsel submitted that in case any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the earliest. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move fresh representation along with certified copy of this order before respondent No. 3 within two weeks. In case any such representation is filed, respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the same in accordance with law maximum within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 6.It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It is upon respondent No. 3 to pass order after considering the relevant Rules as well as facts of the case. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 ADY Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad