Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIRUDH KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY, CANE DEVELOPMENT & SUGAR IND.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anirudh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary, Cane Development & Sugar Ind. - WRIT - A No. 10856 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4139 (22 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. 10856 of 2006

Anirudh Kumar                                      ...          Petitioner

                                                 Vs.

State of U.P. and others

                                                              ...        Respondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

           Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Clerk on compassionate ground 1.11.1996. He seeks promotion/appointment as permanent clerk. The petitioner has made a representation dated 2.1.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in this regard before respondent no.3 which has remained unactioned till date.

This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter of promotion as it requires adjudication of the controversy on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence and findings of facts are to be recorded, which is not feasible in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter is cognizable by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

However, the only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to respondent no.3 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 2.1.2006 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

Sri Ravindra Singh, counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer of counsel for the petitioner for direction to decide the representation.

Without entering into the merits of the controversy in the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.3 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 3.1.2006 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. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the representation, he may approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before respondent no.3 within 15 days from today.

Dated 22.2.2006

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.