Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TASNEEN RIYAZ versus GORAKHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tasneen Riyaz v. Gorakhpur Development Authority And Another - WRIT - A No. 49161 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 3880 (17 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ No. 49161 of 2005

Tasneen  Riyaz                                       ...    Petitioner

                                                 Vs.

Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur and others

                                                               ... Respondents                            

                                                             

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

           Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Hindi Stenographer in the office of Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur and since then he is working there continuously.

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give suitable work to the petitioner, which is appropriate for a senior most Personal Assistant.

The petitioner has made a representation dated 11.12.2004 to Chairman, Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur, respondent no.1 in this regard which has remained unactioned till date.

The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to respondent no.1 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2004 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

The standing counsel has no objection to this prayer.

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2004 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before respondent no.1 within 15 days from today. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the representation, he may approach before the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Dated 17.2.2006

CPP/-

           


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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