Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 125043 (ALL)

BRIJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

WRIA/2253/2025 · 2025-02-27

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11807 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2253 of 2025 Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Sharma,Ashutosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajat Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) in District Jalaun while the family of the petitioner is living in Auraiya. It has been submitted that one of his sons is studying in Auraiya and his wife, who is also living with his son, does not keep well and submits that the petitioner has given a representation to opposite party No.2 in this regard which has not been decided till date. He further submits that the petitioner is the President of District Service Union but it seems that his term is ending in April, 2025 and on the onset of the transfer order, he would no longer be on the said post and consequently his being the President of the Service Association, would not be a ground for retaining him in Jalaun. 3. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall stand substantially redressed in case opposite party No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 26.6.2024, as contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition expeditiously. 4. Learned State counsel does not object to the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to opposite party No.2 i.e. Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 26.6.2024, as contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.2.2025/RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench