Allowed

Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2018WRIA/21397/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Collector to pass appropriate orders ensuring payment of current and arrears of salary to the petitioner for the post of Survey Chainman, within three months, if the petitioner continues to work on that post.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector to ensure payment of salary and arrears for the post of Survey Chainman within three months.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21397 of 2006

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- P.R. Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Upadhyay,Aniruddha Upadhyaya,P.K. Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is confining his prayer to the writ petition for a direction for the payment of salary on the post of Survey Chainman, which has not been paid to him inspite of order passed by the High Court on 3rd December, 2002.

¶7

From the perusal of the order of the High Court, it transpires that entire controversy raised before the Court in the earlier writ petition was related to period when he officiated as Survey Lekhpal and for that he had not been paid any salary. Last two paragraphs of the order dated 20th September, 2005 read as under:

¶8

" The grievance of the petitioner remains un redressed in as much as his claim for promotion has not been considered by the respondents. He alleges that he was working on the post of Survey Lekhpal in officiating capacity and has not been paid salary inspite of three interim orders passed by this icourt dated 25.5.92, 3.12.2002 and 11.2.2003 wherein it was directed that the petitioner will be entitled to the salary for the post of Survey Chainman. On the aforesaid facts this court finds that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted on the post of Survey Lekhpal under Rule 5 of the said Niyamawali or in the absence of its approval by the Board of Revenue, even otherwise and as tow whether by making appointment of the respondent no. 4 by directed recruitment on a post to be filled by promotion. The respondent no. 2 an illegally. Since the controversy relates to pure factual question as such it would be proper that the said controversy to be decided by the respondent no. 1 (Collector Ballia) who may give his decision preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith suitable application is filed before him by the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 will also pass orders with respect to payment of current salary as well as arrears of salary of the petitioner for the post of Survey Chainman in case the petitioner has been working continuously on the said post. The respondent no. 1 shall give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no. 4 before passing the order as indicated above. The said orders will contain reason for the same.

¶9

This writ petition stands disposed of as above. No order is passed as to costs.“

¶10

It appears that the word Survey Lekhpal occurring in the above order for the purpose of direction to respondent no. 2 for payment of current and arrears of salary only related to Survey Lekhpal. It is also got clarified further from the representation that was made by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the Court wherein he clearly stated that he had filed writ petition only because while discharging

¶11

¶12

duties as a Survey Lekhpal though in officiating capacity neither his case for promotion was being considered nor, he was being paid salary for the said post.

¶13

The relevant paragraph of the representation made by the petitioner dated 25.10.2005 in compliance of the order of the Court dated 29.9.2005 is quoted hereunder:

¶14

“vr% izkFkhZ losZ ys[kiky ds in dk osru ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ijUrq rRdkfyu lgk;d vfHkys[k vf/kdkjh cfy;k Jh jek'kadj nwcs }kjk izkFkhZ dks u rks losZ ys[kiky ds in ij izksUufr fd;k x;k vkSj u rks iwoZ esa fd;s x;s losZ ys[kiky ds in ds dk;Zdky dk osru Hkwxrku fd;k x;k ftlls {kqC/k gksdj izkFkhZ us mijksDr ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds le{k izLrqr fd;k ftl ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 20&09&2005 dks izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk rFkk LFkkbZ vf/koDrk m0 iz0 ljdkj dh lquokbZ ds i'pkr izkFkhZ dks funsZf'kr djrs gq, ;g vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ egksn; ds le{k ,d izkFkZuk i= ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20&09&2005 dh lR; izfrfyfi ds lkFk izLrqr djs vkSj egksn; dks Hkh funZsf'kr fd;k x;k gS mijksDr izkFkZuk i= ds pkj ekg ds Hkhrj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk funsZf'kr fcUnqvksa ij fuLrkj.k djrs gq, izkFkhZ dk orZeku o cdk;k osru Hkqxrku lqfuf'pr djsa A”

¶15

It appears for the aforesaid reasons, no order has been passed with regard to the payment of salary of the petitioner on the post of Survey Chainman while respondent Collector/District Magistrate passed the order on 25th February, 2006. The entire argument is developed only on the basis of observations-cum- directions coming in the Court's order dated 20th September, 2005 for a direction for the payment of salary for the post of Survey Chainman .

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Survey Chainman and had been working on the said post. It is also very much clear from the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 25.2.2006 that petitioner's claim from promotion has been rejected. Since petitioner has confined his claim for the payment of salary for the post of Survey Chainman and there being no dispute as far as claim of the petitioner on the said post is concerned and admittedly, petitioner is discharging his duties, there is no reason to withhold the salary of the petitioner to which he is otherwise entitled.

¶17

I, therefore, direct that the Collector shall ensure to pass appropriate order and in the event petitioner is still working on the post of Survey Chainman either in district Ballia or in district Gorakhpur, the petitioner shall be paid salary including arrears of salary. However, in the event respondent comes to hold that petitioner worked only till a

¶18

¶19

particular period in the past, he shall ensure payment of salary till that date if not paid earlier. Necessary orders shall be passed within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Sanjeev

Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Sala Uddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Khilari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Committee of Management Bharat Sewak Samaj Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Desh Deepak Prasad Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secry. Education and Others