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


Mannu Lal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 18569 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 12386 (27 July 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).


Court No.1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18569 of 2000

Mannu Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others.


Hon. Ran Vijai Singh,J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims himself to be the Collection Tehbildar appointed  w.e.f.1.7.1995, with the following prayers:

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature  of mandamus and commanding the to direct  the respondents to provide some benefit like Regular Tehbildar (Now Deputy Cashier) to the petitioner.

(ii) to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus and commanding the to direct the respondent to provide all benefit fo the Government employee to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

(iii) to issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents denying the allegation made in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the writ petition by stating  that there is no similarity of work between the regular Tehbildar and Collection Tehbildar, their works are entirely different and service conditions are also different. It is also stated that there is no promotional post in the Collection Tehbildar Cadre. On the contrary, the petitioner has reiterated his stand taken in the writ petition  with regard  to the service condition and similarity of  work with the regular Tehbildar.

I have heard Sri J.P.N.Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner, and Learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.

Since the disputed question of fact is involved  in this case, and in this regard the petitioner has already moved a detail representation to the Principal  Secretary (Finance), U.P. Government, Lucknow on 23.10.98 but as per instruction  of the parties available on record  no decision has yet been taken on that representation.

It will be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, that at first representation of the petitioner be decided by the Secretary (Finance)/  competent authority in this regard. The petitioner is directed to move fresh representation raising his grievance along with a certified copy of this order and copy of the writ petition and the same shall be decided  by the competent authority expeditiously in accordance with law.

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Dt. 27.7.2006.



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.