AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. N. Pathak, J
At the very outset, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 5350 of 2010 vide order dated 11.07.2011, which was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 278/2011 and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by that order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5350 of 2010, granting similar benefits to this petitioner also.
Though counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents, however, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid case.
In view of fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5350 of 2010 with detailed order and since this writ petition is also covered by the said decision, the same is being disposed of in terms of orders passed therein.
Accordingly, in view of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the case of the present petitioner should also be considered. The respondents are directed to take a decision in this regard and if the case of the petitioner is found to be same and similar to that of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5350 of 2010, similar relief may be granted to the present writ petitioner also in accordance with law, within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Needless to say that if the petitioner is not found entitled for the same, reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner, within a further period of two weeks.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of.