Allowed

Om Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2023/3116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former work-charge/daily-wage worker regularized in 2006, sought pension and benefits. Court allowed the writ petition noting petitioner was similarly situated to another claimant who received benefits, directing respondents to grant the admitted benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with direction to grant petitioner all benefits, including pension, extended to Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava as per letter dated 10.05.2023.

Om Prakash Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32671

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3116 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Pandey,Ratnesh Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was appointed on work-charge basis in the year 1980 and on 21.07.1989, the petitioner was engaged as dailywage worker. As the services of the petitioner were threatened to be terminated, the petitioner alongwith other persons preferred Writ Petition No.6384 of 1989 which was allowed on 19.08.1992 with directions to take steps for regularization. The said judgment dated 19.08.1992 was challenged in an appeal which too was dismissed on 20.12.2016. In the meanwhile, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 20.07.2006, however, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the pension and other benefits for which the present writ petition has been filed.

¶7

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a person similar to the present petitioner namely Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, who was also the petitioner of Writ Petition No.6384 of 1989, is being granted the benefits which are being claimed by the petitioner.

¶8

3. Considering the fact that the petitioner is similarly situated as that of Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava whom the benefits are being given as has been accepted in the letter dated 10.05.2023 produced by learned counsel for the respondents, which is taken on record, there is no reason why the same benefits shall not be granted to the petitioner.

¶9

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to grant all the benefits to the petitioner which have been extended to Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava as admitted in the letter dated 10.05.2023.

¶10

Order Date :- 11.5.2023

¶11

nishant

¶12

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

C/M Azad Laghu Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Palia Jagmohan Singh Thru. Headmaster Sri Dev Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Others

Kusum Rani Srivastava and Another Vs Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. Manging Director Lko. and 5 Others

Mohammad Ghufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. of Higher Edu. Lko. and 7 Others

Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing and Urban Planning, Lko. and Another

Adarsh Srivastva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag Bapu Bhawan Lko. and Others

Ram Gopal Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others