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


Raj Kishor Maurya v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 18155 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6354 (6 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.

It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the service as Consolidation Lekhpal in the year 1969. By an order dated 8.9.1982, he was dismissed from service, which order was confirmed in appeal. However, the claim of the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders was allowed by the State Public Services Tribunal vide order dated 22.9.1990 and it was directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated and it shall be deemed that the petitioner was in continuous service. The petitioner was thereafter permitted to join on 4.9.1992 and he was also granted his due increments but was not paid his arrears of salary. The petitioner has now retired on 31.1.2007. The petitioner submits that he would be entitled to the benefit of arrears of salary for the period 8.9.1982 to 4.9.1992. It has further been contended that while calculating the pension and other retiral benefits, the benefit of service for the aforesaid period 8.9.1982 to 4.9.1992 should also be given to the petitioner. With regard to such grievances, the petitioner has already filed several representations before the respondent-authorities, 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. 2, the Chief Revenue Officer, Jaunpur alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably 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 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.