Disposed

Shrish Nandan Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021WRIA/4408/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought benefits and back wages legally due post the winding up of U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd., relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The High Court dismissed the immediate claim for payment, directing the petitioner to file a representation before the State Government within two weeks. The court ordered the State to decide on the claim within three month

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation with claims specifying basis; State Government to decide within three months; amount due to be paid within same period.

Shrish Nandan Shukla Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4408 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shrish Nandan Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the official liquidator assisted by Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Present petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶7

"(a) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent-Authorities to consider case of the Petitioner and extend the benefits also to the Petitioner in the light of the Judgment and order dated 9.9.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2010 along with other connected Civil Appeals.

¶8

(b) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent-Authorities to release the salary/back wages/retiral benefits with all consequential benefit to the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court."

¶9

Undisputedly, the U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. (liquidation) was wound up under orders of the Company Court with effect from 08.12.1999. As regards the dues claimed by the petitioner, undisputedly the service dues of the petitioner up to the date 08.12.1999 have been discharged by the Official Liquidator. As to the further claims made by the petitioner beyond the date of winding up, the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2015 in Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2009 (Sunil Kumar Verma & Other Vs State of U.P. & Others) had held as under:

¶10

"23. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no reason that the Appellants herein should not reap the benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is directed that they shall be absorbed by the State Government as per their seniority and be given the benefit of increments, within eight weeks hence. Needless to say, they will be entitled to their seniority as per the prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service, he shall get the retiral benefits

¶11

inclusive of pension.

¶12

24. At this juncture, the question arises as to what amount should be paid towards back wages. In this context, our attention has been invited to the order passed by this court in contempt proceeding. However, after some debate, learned counsel for the Appellants left it to the discretion of this Court. Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State vehemently opposed with regard to grant of any back wages. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on this score and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if each of the Appellant is paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so directed. It shall be computed as per our directions issued hereinbefore within a period of twelve weeks hence and be paid to the Appellants.

¶13

25. The aforesaid appeals which relate to U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the dues being claimed by the petitioner are to be addressed by the State Government and not the Official Liquidator.

¶15

Further, it appears that the State Government has yet not taken any decision in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent no.3, within a period of two weeks from today, along with a copy of this order, clearly specifying the claim made and the basis for the same, the said respondent shall pass appropriate orders on that representation within three months giving reasons for its decision. If required, it may remain open to the respondent no.3 to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

Any amount found due and payable to the petitioner may be paid within the same time.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 S.Chaurasia

Shrish Nandan Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrish Nandan Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Aaditya Kumar @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Gorey Lal Vs Anil Gupta and 2 Others

Smt. Shivrani and 2 Others Vs Amit Kumar and 3 Others

Raman Kant Subodh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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