Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education Lko. and Another

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8344 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Km. Vishwa Mohini,Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Tripathi Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Inamuddin Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶2With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶3Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 515-860 i.e Rs 5000-8000 from 13.03.2004 onward by 6th & 7th Pay Commission from 01.01.2006 &

01.01.2016 respectively to till date.

¶4At the very outset, Sri Inamuddin Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has taken preliminary objection pertaining to the writ petition being barred by delay and laches.

¶5However, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may approach the respondent no. 2 i.e King George Medical University, through its Registrar by submitting the representation for the redressal of his grievances and it would be open for the respondent no. 2 to take all pleas open to him including the delay and laches while deciding the representation of the petitioner.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the respondent No.2 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Inamuddin Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have no objection.

¶7In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before the respondent No.2 then the respondent No.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

¶8With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶9It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. Order Date :- 27.10.2023 Pachhere/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench