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


Mahendra Nath Rai And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9624 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2974 (22 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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.

The petitioners are all Tubewell Mistri working in the Irrigation Department. They claim that they are entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 but they have wrongly been given pay scale of Rs.975-1540. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the similar circumstances some other Tubewell Mistries had filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 1.11.2000. The petitioners claim that they are also entitled to the same benefit and for fixation of their pay in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that with regard to the said grievances the petitioners have filed representation before the respondent-authorities, which has not yet been decided.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to their grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioners file fresh comprehensive representation before the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow, respondent no.2 alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law by a speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within two 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 cost.





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.