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


Daya Shanker v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 59427 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2522 (8 September 2005)


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 respondent no. 1. Considering the nature of the order which is being passed, notices to respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 are not being issued and this writ petition is being disposed of finally. In case if the said respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 are so aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to file an application for modification, variation and/or recall of this order.

The petitioner is a Class IV employee working with the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Fatehpur. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 the posts of Class III are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Class IV employees. As such the submission is that the petitioner being fully eligible for promotion, should have been considered and promoted on the post of Class III which is lying vacant. The respondent No. 2, the U.P. Sahkari Sansathagat Sewa Mandal, Lucknow has already directed for promotion of eight Class IV employees, who all, according to the petitioner, are junior to the petitioner. On 5th August, 2005 the respondent no. 2 had called for papers and comments with regard to the case of the petitioner from the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Fatehpur and in response the Bank has already sent requisite papers and necessary comments but the case of the petitioner has yet not been considered and no decision with regard to his promotion has been taken by the respondent no. 2.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files a comprehensive representation before respondent no. 2,  the U.P. Sahkari Sansathagat Sewa Mandal, Lucknow alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 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.