Petitioner-driver claimed non-payment of minimum pay scale. Court dismissed writ, directing petitioner to approach subordinate authority with fresh representation, which authority must decide within two months.
Direction to submit fresh representation to Respondent-3; authority to decide within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8148 of 2022
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rabindra Nath Ojha,Om Prakash Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.N. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 4.
Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to pay the minimum of the pay-scale and further direct the respondents to decide the representation of petitioner in the light of law laid down in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (2017) 1 SCC 148, Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 297.
Record shows that petitioner is working with respondent no.3 as a Driver. However, grievance of petitioner is that he is not being paid the minimum of the pay scale admissible to Class-IV employees. Accordingly, he made representations. The last representation was made on 17.7.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted herein above, petitioner is entitled to the minimum of the pay scale.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that grievance of petitioner is required to be considered by respondent-3 Deputy Director Horticulture, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda, at the first instance. He, therefore submits that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-3 to consider the grievance of petitioner in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
In view above, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent-3 Deputy Director Horticulture, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda ventilating his grievances, along with a certified copy of this order. In case such a representation is filed respondent-3 Deputy Director Horticulture, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda shall decide the same within a period of two months thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.05.31 20:39:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a workman is entitled to the minimum of the pay scale in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P.Referred¶6
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (2017) 1 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
Santosh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 4
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
