Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 134239 (ALL)

CHNADRA SHEKHAR (PNO - 931200047 ) AND 8 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. HOME AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/4157/2025 · 2025-04-17

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21725 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4157 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chnadra Shekhar (Pno - 931200047 ) And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Mishra,Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to pay the honorarium one month salary to the petitioners in accordance with the government order number 2055/6-पप0-2-09-1100(85)/09, dated 11.12.2009 for extra work done by the petitioners on gazetted holiday, second Saturday and Sunday, in accordance with the government order number 2055/6-पप0-2-09-1100(85)/09; dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure Number 3). b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to pay the Paushtik Aahar Bhatta to the petitioners in accordance with the government order number सस0/आ 0-2-110011211-84 dated 26.11.1986 (Annexure Number 9). c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party number 4 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure Number 1) in accordance with the government order number 2055/6-पप0-2-09-1100(85)/09 dated 11.12.2009 within a stipulated period of time as fixed by the hon'ble Court." After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer to the extent that the representation of the petitioners may be directed to be decided by respondent no.5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to this innocuous prayer. Perused the record. Considering the above, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation to respondent no.4 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police (Headquarter) U.P. Vigilance Establishment within two weeks' from today. If the petitioners submit a fresh representation, the respondent no.4 shall decide the same within four weeks' thereafter, by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench