Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVI PRASAD SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Devi Prasad Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 51697 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 19463 (17 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-Official Liquidator. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is retrenched employee of the erstwhile U.P. Cement Corporation Limited, which has been liquidated vide order dated 8.12.1999. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the judgment and order of this Court dated 6.1.2004 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36644 of 2003 Shailendra Kumar Pandey and others Vs. State of U.P. and others inasmuch as similarly situated retrenched employees of the U.P. Cement Corporation Limited have already been absorbed on Group ''C' posts. The petitioner has further submitted that with regard to such grievances, he has already filed representations before the respondent-authorities, which have yet not been decided and hence this writ petition has been filed.

Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator has submitted that although those petitioners who had been appointed before 1.10.1986 and continued to work till the date of liquidation may be entitled to absorption but those who were appointed after 1.10.1986 would not be entitled to the said benefit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that in case if, with regard to their grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioners file a fresh comprehensive representation before the Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Government of U.P., Lucknow along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided either by the said authority or through any other competent authority duly authorized by him, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to cost.

Dt/-17.11.2006

dps

w.p.51697.05


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.