Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 127094 (ALL)

SURESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. RURAL DEVELOPMENT U.P. LKO. AND ANOTHER

WRIA/2608/2025 · 2025-03-06

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13728 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2608 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Rural Development U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider to grant the service benefit of the Uttar Pradesh Government Department Driver Service (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2013 which provides that the driver shall be paid Grade-III on completion of 9 years services in grade pay of Rs. 2400/-, Driver Grade-II in Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- on completion of 15 years services including 6 years as Driver Grade-III, Driver Grade-I on completion of 18 years services in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- including 3 years services on Driver Grade-II, Driver Special Grade on completion of 19 years services including 1 year services on Driver Grade-I, in Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and 3rd ACP in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- on completion of 26 years services as per the Government Order dated 05.11.2014 along with arrears. 3. In this regard, it has been submitted that petitioners have given representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure No. 7) to the respondent which is pending consideration and have not been decided so far. 4. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioners submits that grievance of the petitioners shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure No. 7) in a time bound manner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel does not object if a direction is issued to respondent for expeditious disposal of the representation preferred by the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure No. 7) by reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 6.3.2025/Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench