Disposed¶20

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2020WRIA/10302/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wager since 1992; Forest Department; regularization of services; minimum salary equal to regular employee; Article 226 mandamus; writ disposed of in terms of earlier order dated 01.11.2019 in Writ - A No. 17175 of 2019; representation to respondent no.6; State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148; Vinod Kumar Special Appeal No.48 of 2012; Sabha Shanker Dube Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018; State of U.P.; Standing Counsel concession; decided 8.12.2020.

What did the court decide?

No substantive mandamus issued; writ petition disposed of in terms of the order dated 01.11.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 17175 of 2019. ¶20

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10302 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Pandey,Rajendra Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following two reliefs:

¶8

"I. To, issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner.

¶9

II. To, issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the minimum salary as equallent to the regular employee till his regularization."

¶10

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been working as 'daily wager' since 1992 with the Forest Department, however, in spite of order passed by the Apex Court, the case of regularization of the petitioner has not been considered till date.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 01.11.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 17175 of 2019 which is reproduced hereunder:

¶12

"It appears that separate and distinct causes have been raised by 16 petitioners in this petition.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that causes being separate and distinct they ought not to be joined in one petition.

¶14

Objection raised in that regard is liable to be sustained. In view of the fact that all petitioners apparently have been engaged on different dates and have worked on/till different dates, clubbing of all such grievance together would otherwise create number of difficulties as it would be difficult to adjudicate such causes separately in this composite petition. This petition is, therefore, entertained at the instance of petitioner no.1 only. So far as the petitioner nos.2 to 16 are concerned, this petition is permitted to be withdrawn at their instance with liberty to file fresh petitions on their behalf, separately.

¶15

In respect of the petitioner no.1 it is stated that he is working at Forest

¶16

Range Bansdeeh at district Ballia since 5.7.1982, but he has not been paid minimum of pay scale nor his services have been regularized. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. The Divisional Forest Officer and others (Special Appeal No.48 of 2012) dated 2.1.2017. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer being Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner's claim shall be examined by the authority concerned, in accordance with law.

¶18

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner no.1 to approach respondent no.6 by making a representation in respect of his grievance, noticed above, alongwith certified copy of this order, annexing all materials in support of his claim, within a period of three weeks from today. In case such a claim is raised, the same shall be examined by the authority concerned keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above, and an appropriate order would be passed, in accordance with law, within a further period of two months thereafter. All consequential action to be taken, accordingly."

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above legal and factual position.

¶20

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 01.11.2019 (supra).

¶21

Order Date :- 8.12.2020 IrfanUddin

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramdeen Yadav Vs Board of Revenue and Another

Jai Prakash Yadav and 10 Others Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Indrawati Vs Board of Revenue and 6 Others

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anganbari Workers Union, Meerut Vs State of U.P. and 23 Others