Dismissed

Rinku Sagar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2020SPLAD/305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal barred by limitation, the High Court examined the merits. The appellant-petitioners sought regular pay scale, but lower courts held appointments were contractual. The Court held the dispute is a pure question of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, directing the parties to approach the competent forum.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant-petitioners are at liberty to agitate their cause before the competent forum.

Rinku Sagar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 305 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Rinku Sagar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashibind Kumar Srivasatava

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 11 days, ignoring the same, we have examined the merits of the case.

¶6

By way of filing a petition for writ bearing No.31785 of 2010, the appellants claimed for the regular pay scale applicable to the post held by them. By an order dated 28th May, 2010, the petition for writ aforesaid came to be disposed of by directing the Director, Directorate of Social Welfare to consider and decide the representation submitted by the appellants in this regard. The Director vide order dated 8th September, 2010 rejected the claim made by the appellant-petitioners by arriving at a definite conclusion that the appointment was given on contractual basis through a registered contractor and the evidence produced by the appellants relating to their appointment prior to registration of the contractor is forged and, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence.

¶7

Being aggrieved by the order dated 8th September, 2010, the appellants again approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.39183 of 2011. The writ Court dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that the appointments given to the appellants were purely on contractual basis and as such the issue with regard to payment of wages is a lis between the contractor and a workman employed.

¶8

By questioning correctness of the judgment dated 6th April, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench, the argument advanced by learned counsel is that as per provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, no contractor can supply labour without having requisite licence under the act aforesaid. The registration of the contractor through which appellants are said to be employed is subsequent to the date of appointment of the appellant-petitioners and as such the stand of the employer in the finding given by learned single Bench is erroneous. The appellants prior to registration of the contractor or having licence under the Act of 1970 could have not been

¶9

employed or supplied to the principal employer by the contractor concerned.

¶10

We are of considered opinion that the issue sought to be agitated by the appellant-petitioners is purely a question of fact that cannot be examined by a writ Court or in appeal arising out of an order passed by the writ Court. No interference as such is warranted in appellate jurisdiction.

¶11

The appeal hence, is dismissed. The appellant-petitioners are at liberty to agitate their cause before the competent forum and if they do so, the findings arrived by learned single Bench and even by the Director would not come to their way.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.1.2020 Bhaskar

¶13

(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Rinku Sagar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Sagar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

raj kishor and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 23 Ors.

Radhey Shyam Verma Vs U.P. Cooperative Bank and 2 Ors.