Harish Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Harish Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent no. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2019 and decide it strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the order in Writ A No. 17842 of 2019 (passed in terms of Jagvir Singh Rohilla), within three months from the date of production of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a retired medical officer of the respondent department, is entitled to a writ of mandamus for grant of one notional increment in salary for the period 2018-19 (year of superannuation) and consequential refixation of pension, in terms of the order passed in Writ A No. 17842 of 2019 (which itself was disposed of in terms of Jagvir Singh Rohilla).

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 1 to consider the claim of the petitioner as raised in his representation dated 27.12.2019 and decide the same strictly in accordance with law if the order quoted hereinabove (the order in Writ A No. 17842 of 2019, passed in terms of Jagvir Singh Rohilla) is applicable to the petitioner, examining the petitioner's case in the light of the observations made in that judgment within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Retired medical officer's claim for one notional increment in salary for 2018-19 (year of superannuation) and consequential refixation of pension: the identical controversy of an identically placed employee had already been disposed of by the Court in Writ A No. 17842 of 2019 in terms of Jagvir Singh Rohilla Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors. (Writ A No. 5959 of 2019, dt. 17.7.2019). The petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2019 in that behalf remained undisposed. Learned Standing Counsel raised no objection to a direction being issued. Held: writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no. 1 to consider the representation dated 27.12.2019 and decide it strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the quoted order, within three months from production of a copy of the order.

Court No. - 74

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12210 of 2020

Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

The petitioner is a retired medical officer with the respondent department. He claims for a writ of mandamus to provide notional increment in the salary for the period 2018-19.

It is submitted that the controversy has already travelled before this Court in the matter of identically placed employee vide Writ A No. 17842 of 2019, in which following order has been passed.

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent.

Petitioners are before this Court with a request to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide one Notional increment to petitioners in their salary for the period of year of their superannuation, and further may fix the pension of petitioners adding one Notional increment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Jagvir Singh Rohilla Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors. (Writ A No. 5959 of 2019, dt. 17.7.2019) and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner.

The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is not being disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Jagvir Singh Rohilla (supra)."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter may also be examined in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Writ A No. 17842 of 2019, and in this regard, the petitioner has already made a representation to the authority concerned on 27.12.2019 which has remained undisposed off till date.

Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection if direction is issued to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the order quoted hereinabove.

In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 1 to consider the claim of the petitioner as raised in his representation dated 27.12.2019 and decide the same strictly in accordance with law if the order quoted hereinabove is applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner’s case will be examined in the light of the observations made in the judgment ( supra ) within three months from the date of production of copy of this order.

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Sanjeev