Dismissed

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Vibhag Deppt. Civil Secrt. U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022/8755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a village Pradhan seeking directions to implement government schemes, pay laborers' wages, remove encroachment, complete road work, and transfer a technical assistant, holding the petitions vague or better pursued through administrative/disciplinary channels.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as petitions were vague or better pursued through administrative/disciplinary channels.

Raj Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8755 of 2022 Petitioner :- Raj Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Vibhag Deppt. Civil Secrt. U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel.

¶4

This petition has been filed with the prayers which are omnibus in nature. In fact, the prayer clause in the writ petition clearly reveals that several causes of action have been jumbled up in this petition.

¶5

The petitioner is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned and is aggrieved by the alleged non-implementation of the certain Government schemes in the Village Panchayat concerned and also by alleged non-payment of the wages/ remuneration to the labourers engaged in the work related to such schemes.

¶6

Another prayer made in the writ petition is in relation to removal of alleged encroachment from khasra plot no.38, which is said to be recorded as cremation ground in revenue records.

¶7

The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to allow to the petitioner to complete the work of chak road. It has also been prayed that respondent no.5, who is the Technical Assistant posted in Village Panchayat Koraiya Jangal, Block and Tehsil Lakhimpur, District Kheri, may be transferred. A prayer seeking some legal action against the respondent no.5 has also been sought.

¶8

So far as prayer nos.1 & 2 are concerned, the same are absolutely vague. So far as the prayer for issuing a direction to implement all Government Schemes in village is concerned, this Court is unable to decipher from the pleadings available on this writ petition as to which all schemes are not being implemented.

¶9

As regards the prayer seeking a direction to the

¶10

ofÏcial respondents for payment of wages/ remuneration to the labourers is concerned, no specific details have been given in the writ petition as to who are the workers and labourers, who have not been given payment for the work done by them.

¶11

Even otherwise, if a worker or labourer is engaged in some Government work or scheme and payment is not made, it will be his personal right to claim the wages or payment and non-payment of wages will constitute a personal cause of action to the labourer concerned.

¶12

As regards the prayer no.3 made in the writ petition, we may only observe that the petitioner being the Pradhan of the Village ought to have instituted proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶13

As regards the prayer relating to the direction to be issued to the ofÏcial respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the work relating to the Chak road is concerned, it appears from a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition that there is some dispute and hence it is for the administrative authorities to consider the said prayer.

¶14

In respect of the prayer nos.5 and 6, which are in relation to seeking transfer of respondent no.5 and also taking action against the alleged illegalities said to have been committed by the respondent no.5, we only observe that such a prayer cannot be granted for the reason that it is primarily the function of the disciplinary/ appointing authority to ensure that a Government servant discharges his duty appropriately. In case any illegality has been noticed by the petitioner, she ought to have pursued the matter before the administrative authorities.

¶15

For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition.

¶16

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Rahul

¶18

Digitally signed by RAHUL TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.08 14:06:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Vibhag Deppt. Civil Secrt. U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Vibhag Deppt. Civil Secrt. U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof. Avtar Singh V.C. Agra in Re No. 811/206 Contempt Vs C - Impact Institute Agra

C/M Inter College Inter College Inre W.P.No.M/S 515 of 06 Vs Satya Narayan Bajpai

Union of India Thru. Secy. Railway Board Ministry of Railway Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and 2 Others Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Lko. Thru. Member and Another

Daya Shanker Singh S/S 159/2006 Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha and 4 Ors.

Paras Nath Tiwari Vs Director of Education Madhyamik and 6 Ors.

Shashi Prabha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others