Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 123668 (ALL)

DINESH PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS SECY. DEPTT. OF FINANCE AUDIT DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/1929/2025 · 2025-02-17

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10164 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1929 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dinesh Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Audit Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Ram Singh Yadav,Yogesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Jai Ram Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioners are working on the post of Auditor in Audit Department, State of U.P. having been promoted from ministerial cadre in 2015. It is stated that now they are eligible for being promoted to the next higher post of Senior Auditor but the respondents are not considering the said promotion despite several representations having been given to them. It is further stated that the respondents have not paid the petitioners arrears of benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) along with interest and, therefore, prayer has been made in the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Senior Auditors from the date their juniors of ministerial cadre were given the said promotion. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay arrears of ACP and promotional avenues after calculating the previous services of ministerial cadre and re-fix the pay accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the matter at some length, submits that the grievances of the petitioners shall stand substantially redressed in case opposite party No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in this regard. 4. Learned Sanding counsel does not object to the aforesaid prayer. 5. Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioners to make a fresh representation within two weeks from today and in case such a representation is made, opposite party No.3 shall consider and decide the same, expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioners. 6. With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.2.2025/Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench