Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURAJ BHAN GUPTA versus U.P.S.R.T.C. THRU' PRADHAN PRABANDHAK AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suraj Bhan Gupta v. U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru' Pradhan Prabandhak And Others - WRIT - A No. 8537 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2684 (19 February 2007)

 

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. 1

Civil Misc. Writ No. 8539 of 2007

Jagdish Kumar Agnihotri                                  ....                     Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

and others                                             .....                     Respondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard Sri Hare Krishna Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.N. Sahai, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Booking Clerk in the respondent-Corporation on 18.12.1977; promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector w.e.f. 5.3.1999 but was not permitted to work on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector.against which, he has preferred statutory appeal dated 11.12.2006 before the respondent no. 1 which has not yet been decided.

 The only prayer of counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to the respondent no. 1 to decide the appeal dated 11.12.2006 of the petitioner within some time frame to which Sri M.N. Sahai, counsel for the respondents has no objection.                

            This writ petition is dismissed.  In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the order on his appeal, the petitioner may challenge the same before Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal or under any other forum which may be available to him as it is not feasible for this Court to give findings of fact on the basis of documentary and oral evidence which can be adduced before the Labour Court. No order as to costs.

             The respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the statutory appeal of the petitioner, pending at his end, dated 11.12.2006 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Dated 19.2.2006

Kkb


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.