AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikas Bahl, J
This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to grant the due service benefits (salary for the period w.e.f. 05.09.2010 to 13.12.2011, due amount towards leave encashment for the period w.e.f. 05.09.2010 to 13.12.2011, due amount towards House Rent Allowance & City Compensatory Allowance w.e.f. 05.09.2010 to 10.01.2014 along with due Annual increments/04 years ACP/Revised Pay Scales).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the petitioner had given legal notice dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) and she would be satisfied at this stage, in case, the competent authority of respondent No.1-State is directed to consider the said legal notice dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) in a time bound manner and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious then to grant necessary relief in accordance with law.
Learned State Counsel has submitted that the competent authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the said legal notice dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority of respondent No.1-State to consider legal notice dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious then the competent authority would grant necessary relief, in accordance with law and in case, the competent authority is of the opinion that the pleas raised by the petitioner are not meritorious then a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order.
This Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the competent authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the case of the petitioner independently, in accordance with law.