Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 114489 (ALL)

STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. TAX and INSTITUTIONAL FIN. andANR v. PANKAJ KUMAR and ANR.

WRIA/12151/2018 · 2025-08-11

Manjive Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46785-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12151 of 2018 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Tax And Institutional Fin. Andanr Respondent :- Pankaj Kumar And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,Mrityunjay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan in Claim Petition No. 135 of 2014 (Pankaj VermsVs. State of U.P. & another) allowing the claim of the respondent. 2. The issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the 'accepting authority' was justified in downgrading the "Utkrisht Entry" given to the respondent by the Reviewing Officer and the reporting authority without giving any reasons. It is only on account of the said downgrading that the petitioner while being considered for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner Grade-II/I, Commercial Tax Department did not succeed as he got two marks less. This led to the filing to the aforesaid claim petition. The Tribunal has found that no reasons were given for downgrading of the entry and the representation of the petitioner was summarily disposed of without referring to the G.O. dated 12.6.2006, which was applicable therefore, it has quashed by 28.2.2014 rejecting the representation, consequently, it has allowed the claim petition and directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion on the post of Additional Commissioner Grade-II/I, Commercial Tax Department. The said judgment was passed on 21.7.2014. The respondent was 53 years of age in the year 2014 and he must have retired in 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the State does not have instruction as to whether the judgment was complied or not. Be that as it may, having gone through the said judgment we do not find any error therein, therefore, we dismiss the petition of the State. . (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench