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


K.V.S. Chauhan v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. And Others - WRIT - A No. 60624 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18799 (7 November 2006)


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.R.P.Misra, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Seema Shukla and Sri Nirpendra Misra, counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri D.K. Srivastava counsel for the respondent No.4.

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the seniority list and promotion list (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and include the name of the petitioner in the list according to his seniority from the date of his appointment.  The further prayer has been made in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation-dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) of the petitioner.

It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 17.11.1980. It has also been stated that the Diploma Engineers as well as the Degree Holders both were appointed in the same cadre on the similar terms and conditions in the Sugar Corporation.  Earlier the seniority list was prepared and the name of the petitioner was placed in the said seniority list at Serial No.48.  Subsequently, another seniority list was prepared by the department and the name of the diploma holders were placed in the said seniority list much above than the petitioner's name. In such a situation, the petitioner raised a dispute and as the petitioner states that he has already approached the competent authority by way of making a representation.  As there are questions regarding the seniority is to be considered by the competent authority, as such, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition can be disposed of for deciding the representation of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact and in the present circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate in the interest of justice that a direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd., 9A Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, be issued to the effect that the representation dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) filed before the respondent No.2 be decided within a period of two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order.  It is also made clear that while deciding the representation of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law.


With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.



W.P. No.60624/2006


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.