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


Beni Prasad Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 59989 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2604 (9 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 Sri R.K.Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri C.B.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3. With the consent of 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 was initially engaged as Tax Collector/Clerk in the erstwhile Local Self Government Engineering Department in the year 1972. After merger of Engineering Department into Jal Sansthan the petitioner was taken in service of the Jal Sansthan in the year 1975. It has further been contended that in the year 1979 the petitioner was regularized as Pump Driver whereas according to the petitioner he ought to have been regularized in Class III Ministerial Cadre in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. It has been submitted that a similarly situated employee, namely, Krishna Kumar Modi had already been regularized in Class III Ministerial Cadre whereas the same benefit had not been given to the petitioner although he would also be entitled to the same. He has thus filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner in Class III Ministerial Category in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The contention of the petitioner is that although the petitioner has filed several representations in this regard before the respondent-authorities, but the same have yet not been decided.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as with their consent and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, 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 fresh comprehensive representation before the General Manager, Jhansi Region, Jal Sansthan, Jhansi, respondent no.2 along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, by speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties, if there be any, 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.