Disposed

Vineet Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2018WRIA/21677/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed claiming entitlement to wage parity with regular employees. The court did not adjudicate the merits but remitted the matter to the Nagar Ayukt for a decision after verification of facts and an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to respondent no.3 to decide the claim for wage parity after verification and hearing within five months.

Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21677 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhan Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemant Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dhan Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

The petitioner claims to be a contractor employee working in the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to wages which are paid to the regular appointed employees. The petitioner has already submitted a representation in this regard.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported at 2017(1) SCC 148 .

¶8

Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the assertions made in the writ petition need to be verified by the competent authority before the applicability of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the case of the petitioner can be determined.

¶9

In such view of the matter, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3, Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, for fresh consideration. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.3 to execute the following directions :-

¶10

(i) The respondent no.3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner for parity in wages in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The decision shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶12

(iii) The decision in regard to the claim of the petitioner shall be taken within a period of five months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along-with fresh copy of the representation.

¶13

The Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.10.2018 Pramod

Vineet Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kamlesh Pasvan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ainulhuda Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Saurabh Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Prabha Mishra Vs Chairman State Bank of India Corporate Center Mumbai and 3 Others