Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Durgesh Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P. and others - WRIT - C No. 9368 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3661 (16 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

It is the case of the petitioner that on the death of his father he applied for being granted appointment on compassionate grounds. Since such application of the petitioner remained pending, he filed Writ Petition No. 10325 of 2005, in which vide order dated 24.2.2005 this Court directed the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law. In response thereto, the respondent no. 2 has decided the representation of the petitioner on 22.6.2005 wherein it has been held that in compliance of the Government Order dated 4.9.2000 as the application had been filed after five years of the death of the employee, the matter has been referred to the State Government vide letter dated 5.7.2004. In such circumstances a prayer has been made that the respondent no. 1 be directed to decide the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation before respondent no. 1, the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Government, Lucknow alongwith a certified copy of this order as well as the photo stat copy of the letter of respondent no. 2 dated 5.7.2004, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.