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


Ramayan Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 12738 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4081 (9 March 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 petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police. He retired on 31.1.2005. During his service period the petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs. 51,758/- as medical reimbursement, regarding which he submitted his application on 24.2.2003. The power to sanction the reimbursement is with the respondent no. 3, the Inspector General of Police (Bhawan Kalyan), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad.  The submission is that although more than three years have passed and during the said period the petitioner has already retired but still the said amount has not been sanctioned although the petitioner is entitled to the same. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has already filed several representations before the respondent-authorities in this regard, which have yet not been decided.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner  files a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 3, the Inspector General of Police (Bhawan Kalyan), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month 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.