MEGHVARAN @ MEGHVARAN NISHAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF /PRIN. SECY. REVENUE U.P. LKO. AND ANOTHER
WRIA/1450/2025 · 2025-02-05
Manish Kumar Nigam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 121171 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 121171 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7247 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1450 of 2025 Petitioner :- Meghvaran @ Meghvaran Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya),Sonal Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of instant writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction to the opposite parties to provide 1st ACP in the grade pay of Rs.6600/- and IInd ACP in the grade pay of Rs.7600/- with effect from the date of his next similarly placed junior with all consequential benefit of arrears with interest and also for grant of IIIrd ACP in the grade pay of Rs.8700/- as and when it became due.
3. It has been submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer on 20.4.1994 and retired from the post of Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 31.05.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that despite serving more than 26 years of satisfactory services not even a single benefit of ACP has been provided to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not provided the aforesaid benefit of 1st ACP in the grade pay of Rs.6600/- and the benefits of IInd ACP in the grade pay of Rs.7600/- with effect from his juniors placed in similar circumstances despite the fact that his service record was satisfactory.
4. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that respondent no.2 may be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in this regard within the time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, ventilating his grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him within a period of fifteen days from today and appropriate decision may be taken within a period of six weeks thereafter by speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law and decision so taken shall also be communicate to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench