Remanded

Triveni and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021WRIA/2379/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a daily wage employee in the Forest Department seeking regularization of services and minimum pay scale under 2016 Rules. The Court remitted the matter to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Eastern Circle, U.P., Gorakhpur, to decide the representation within three months via a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was remitted to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Eastern Circle, U.P., Gorakhpur, to decide the representation regarding regularization and minimum pay scale within three months by a

Triveni and Another Vs State of U P and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2379 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Triveni And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Datt Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in regard to the petitioner no. 2, he seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no. 2. Liberty is granted. The writ petition is dismissed in regard to petitioner no. 2.

¶6

Insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner is a daily wage employee working in the Forest Department. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to regularization of his services on the foot of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working On daily Wages or on Work Charge or Group C and Group D Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016.

¶7

He also claims entitlement to minimum of pay scale, which is not being paid. The petitioner has made an application in this regard but the same has not been decided till date.

¶8

Shri Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner calls attention of this Court to observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018, Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others , along with the companion appeals, wherein it was

¶9

observed as follows:

¶10

"...This Court took notice of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Uttar Pradesh in which it was stated that the instructions were given to all the officers concerned to implement the directions issued by the High Court regarding payment of the minimum of pay scales to the daily wagers. A direction was given by this Court to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests, State of Uttar Pradesh to file separate affidavits in the High Court regarding the implementation of the directions."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid undertaking is being flouted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶12

It is contended that the right of the petitioners to minimum of pay scale was crystallized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others , reported at 2017 (1) SCC 148 and also in the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. The Divisional Forest Officer And Others in S pecial Appeal No. 48 of 2012.

¶13

The only prayer made by Shri Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner in regard to regularization of services of the petitioner and for minimum of pay scale may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶14

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner is a mixed issue of fact and law, which can be determined in the first instance by the competent authority. However, the claim of the petitioners has to be decided within a reasonable period of time, and not kept pending indefinitely.

¶15

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful

¶16

purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶17

In light of the aforesaid submissions, the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3- Chief Conservator of Forest, Eastern Circle, U.P., Gorakhpur.

¶18

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 3- Chief Conservator of Forest, Eastern Circle, U.P., Gorakhpur, to execute the following directions:

¶19

I. The respondent no. 3- Chief Conservator of Forest, Eastern Circle, U.P., Gorakhpur, shall decide the representation of the petitioner regarding his entitlement to minimum of payscale and claim for regularization of his services, by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioners (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

II. The fact of the earlier affidavit given by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Uttar Pradesh and noticed

¶21

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabha Shanker Dube (supra), shall be considered while making the decision.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.2.2021 Dhananjai

Triveni and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triveni and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalil Ahmad Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Ram Swaroop Vs D.D.C. and Others

Namita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ram Devi and 3 Others Vs Zila Adhikari Banda and 3 Others

Ram Dayal and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others