NASEEM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Lakshmi Kant Trigunait, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Sri Brijesh Mishra, District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "DBEO")is also present and has been given opportunity to make his submission and to clarify his position.

(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners for redressal whereof they have knocked the door of justice by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is very simple. They are victims of total inaction on the part of the respondents. Their pain is regarding non-promotion despite issuance of order of promotion long back which was stayed by the respondent no.3 and for the last two years nothing was done thereafter. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no.3 to grant promotional benefits to them on the post of Head Master in Junior Primary Schools and Junior High schools in Nagar Kshetra under Basic Shiksha Parishad at Allahabad and to ensure payment of salary on the promoted posts month by month.