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


Brij Bhushan Prasad Maurya v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 19415 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 918 (31 March 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).


Court No. 3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  19415   of 2001

Brij Bhushan Prasad Maurya


State of U.P.and others

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.6.1998 Annexure-9 to the writ petition  whereby his representation for grant of promotional scale has been rejected. It has been stated in the order that the petitioner is Mechanic Krishi Raksha  and it has been stated that the petitioner has wrongly stated in the writ petition that he is Krishi Raksha Yantrik Sahayak .

Counter affidavit has been filed wherein Annexure-2 indicates that the petitioner belongs to the class-IV category . In reply in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has filed order relating to his entitlement to travelling allowance wherein he has been considered an employee of category-III.  On the basis of the documents filed by the parties, it appears that promotional scale is being denied by the State Authorities on the ground that they are treating him to be class-IV employee whereas it is the case of the petitioner that he is class-III employee and due to the fact that there is  no avenue of promotion he would be entitled to promotional scale . The dispute between the parties as indicated above  cannot be adjudicated upon in this writ petition in as much as there are two sets of documents filed by the parties taking contradicting  stands  . The impugned order does not contain any decision of this dispute

In  the light  of above facts, the respondent no.1 Director of Agriculture may consider the said dispute as raised in this writ petition with regard to the status of the petitioner being class-III or class-IV employee. The said decision will be taken by the Director on the application being submitted by the petitioner together with a true copy of the writ petition, counter affidavit ,rejoinder affidavit duly  accompanied with  certified copy of this order . Upon the said documents being filed by the  petitioner before the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 will take a decision after giving adequate  opportunity to the petitioner  preferably within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order . In case the respondent no.1 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to class-III category, he will also consider the claim of the petitioner for promotional scale.

For the above reasons and with the said directions, , this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Dt. 31.3.2005



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.