Dismissed

Rajneesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical and Health Services Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2023/854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the State Public Service Tribunal's order declining a pay-scale enhancement claim for an Audio Visual Operator. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the claim was barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissed petition on the same subject.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal order is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rajneesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 854 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajneesh Pratap Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical And Health Services Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Ram Singh Yadav,Yamuna Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Jai Ram Singh Yadav, Advocate and Sri Yamuna Prasad Yadav, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-Respondent.

¶8

By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the Claim Petition No. 856 of 2017.

¶9

The petitioner had been appointed on 21.6.2008 on the post of Audio Visual Operator. He claims that the duties of the post of Audio Visual Operator are the same as that of the Projectionist, hence he should be given the pay-scale similar to that of the post of Projectionist.

¶10

Earlier the petitioner had filed Claim Petition No. 177 of 1995 in the Tribunal claiming payment of salary in the payscale of the post of the Projectionist, which had been dismissed by the Tribunal by means of a judgment and order dated 23.2.2000 holding that no material had been placed it, on the basis whereof the Principle of ‘Equal Work, Equal Pay’ could be enforced in case of the petitioner.

¶11

Thereafter, on 5.11.2009 the petitioner sent another representation to the Director General, Medical and Health

¶12

Services, claiming salary of the post of Projectionist. He again gave a similar representation on 18.4.2017 and thereafter he filed Claim Petition No. 856 of 2017 claiming payment of salary of the post of Projectionist.

¶13

The Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition holding that the earlier Claim Petition No. 177 of 1995 filed for the same relief had been dismissed by it by means of a judgment and order dated 23.2.2000 and the subsequent claim-petition filed for the same relief was without force.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the subject-matter of the earlier petition was not the same as that of the subsequent claim-petition.

¶15

A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in earlier Claim Petition No. 177 of 1995 has been annexed with the writ petition which states that “In the present petition, one Ranish Pratap Singh has prayed for, besides the costs, a direction commanding the respondents to remove the disparity and allow him the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1.1.1986, which has been granted to the Projectionists and Field Publicity Assistants of the Central Government.”

¶16

The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 23.2.2000 and it attained finality. The subsequent claim-petition filed by the petitioner claiming pay-scale of the post of Projectionist was clearly barred by the Principle of Res Judicata and the same was not maintainable.

¶17

The Tribunal committed no error or illegality in dismissing the claim-petition. We find no illegality in the judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition

¶18

lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶19

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha, J. )

¶20

Order Date :- 31.1.2023 A.Nigam

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajneesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical and Health Services Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Medical and Health Services Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. and 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

Ram Bilas Vs State of U.P Thru.Secy.Deptt. of Revenue Lko.and Anr.

State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 4 Ors. Vs Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006

Vishal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Others

State of U.P.Secy Home Inre W.P.NO.4281 S/S 1998 Vs Krishna Mohan Misra and 16 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others Vs Durgawati Singh and Others

Managing Director U.P. Food and Essentials Commodities Corporation Ltd. Lko. and Another Vs Radha Yadav and Another