Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Mahendra Pal Singh Sodhi vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 24 March, 2004

Mahendra Pal Verma vs State Public Services ... on 3 January, 2020

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 passed in the Claim Petition No.1523 of 2015 (Mahendra Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Others) is set aside/quashed only to the extent of denial of back wages to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to provide service benefits and 30% of back wages/salary to petitioner within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajveer Sharma vs State Of U.P. Through Its Principal ... on 9 February, 2021

28. Facts of Writ Petition No.2771 (SS) of 2013 (Mahendra Pal v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner initially joined services as Kamdar in September, 1981. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 7.8.1996. On 17.5.2010, respondent no.3 issued order granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and in pursuance thereof, he submitted joining report and was allowed to work on the said post. On 31.10.2012, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation was retired from service while working on the said post. However, the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Supervisor has not been counted in addition to the services rendered by him on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) as the services rendered by him on the post of Cooperative Supervisor are being treated as non-government services in view of regulation 2(17) of the Regulations, 1976 as well as rule 3(d) of the Service Rules, 1979 as a result of which the petitioner has not been treated to be qualified for government pension in as much as after exclusion of the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Supervisor, the total length of the petitioner's service comes less than 10 years. Challenging the said validity of the provisions of Regulations, the present writ petition has been filed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 4 - I Ali - Full Document

Mahendra Pal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And ... on 24 June, 2022

"i) A writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the part of order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the opp. party No.2 in appeal bearing appeal No. D-006/2022 (Mahendra Pal versus State of U.P. & others) U/S 13(3) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) order, 2016 so far as it relates only to non granting the interim order contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 September, 2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that advertisement in respect of ten accommodations has been issued, pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2022, passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 13389 of 2022, Manoj Kumar and 18 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, as also Writ C No. 6379 of 2023 (Soni Pal vs. State of U.P. & others). Learned counsel further submits that this Court vide order dated 12.04.2023, passed in Writ-C No. 6338 of 2023 had observed that if any EWS accommodation remained to be allotted the respondents may issue fresh advertisement, wherein all applicants including the petitioner herein may have a right to participate. It is contended that the name of the petitioner does not find place anywhere in the advertisement though the names of the prospective allottees have been mentioned therein.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1