Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 211 (ALL)

Badri Prasad Narsaria v. State Of U. P.

2010-01-18

KASHI NATH PANDEY, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner joined the Provincial Medical Services as Medical Officer, pursuant to his appointment on 31.5.1994. Copy of the Bio-data of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition wherein the petitioner was described as belonging to General Category . Copy of the Extract of the Service-Book of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure No.2 to the Writ Petition wherein the caste of the petitioner has been described as Hindu ' Agarwal' . 3. By the order dated 26.12.2008 ( Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition ), the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer in the Pay -Scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of Medical Officers belonging to the General Category but was included in the list of Medical Officers belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category. 4. Again, by the order dated 29.8.2009 ( Anenxure No. 5 to the Writ Petition ) , the petitioner was promoted to the Pay Scale of Rs.12,000 -16,500. However, again the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of Medical Officers belonging to the General Category but was included in the list of the Medical Officers belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite representations having been made by the petitioner and despite communications having been sent by the Chief Medical Officer, Kushinagar ( respondent no.2) to the respondent no.1 for making correction in the aforesaid orders of promotion in respect of the petitioner so as to show the petitioner as belonging to the General Category and not as belonging to the Category of Scheduled Caste, nothing has been done in the matter. 6. Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure Nos. 4,6 ,7 and 8 to the Writ Petition in this regard. 7. 6. Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure Nos. 4,6 ,7 and 8 to the Writ Petition in this regard. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served by disposing of the Writ Petition by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no.1 and directing the respondent no1 to dispose of such representation within a specified period. 8. We accordingly dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions: 1. Within four weeks from today, the petitioner will make a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no.1 along with a certified copy of this order. 2. The respondent no. 1 will decide such representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.