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


Anil Mohan Shukla v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17865 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6185 (5 April 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 appointed as a Constable (M) in the Police department on 27.11.1997. Since the petitioner claims that he ought to have been appointed on the post of A.S.I.(M), he filed writ petition no. 15411 of 2003. However, since during pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was promoted as A.S.I.(M), the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to pursue his claim for being granted promotion from the date from which he was working on the post i.e. From 27.11.1997 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the decision in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner filed a representation on 25.9.2006 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Headquarters U.P., Allahabad, Respondent no.5, for being granted promotion with effect from 22.11.1997. The petitioner has thereafter sent several reminders but the said representation of the petitioner has yet not been decided.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the  Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Headquarters U.P., Allahabad, Respondent no.5, shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.9.2006, in accordance with law, by a reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him annexing therewith a copy of the representation and other documents which the petitioner may find necessary in support of his case.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

dt. 5.4.2007


w.p. 17865.07


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.