Disposed

Arun Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023WRIA/10514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning educational institute lecturers, the petitioner sought quashing of orders and mandamus to re-fix pay scales. Counsel withdrew quashing prayers, seeking only direction to re-fix benefits. The court disposed of the matter without adjudicating on merits, granting liberty to approach the respondent with a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without merits; liberty granted to petitioner to represent cause before second respondent.

Arun Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137311

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10514 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Singh Tomar,Adarsh Bhushan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Shri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing counsel who appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, no notice is issued to the fourth respondent.

¶8

At the very outset, Shri Adarsh Bhushan, as per instructions received by him, he is not pressing the prayer (a) and (b) at this stage, which is as follows:

¶9

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2022 (Annexure no. 7 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent no.2.

¶10

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order impugned orders dated 21.10.2022 (Petitioner no.1), 21.10.2022 (Petitioner no.2), 31.10.2022 (Petitioner no.3), 31.10.2022 (Petitioner no.4), 10.11.2022 (Petitioner no. 5) (Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent no.4."

¶11

According to him to Shri Adarsh Bhushan, in particular, there is no specific order, considering the claim of the writ petitioners who are five in number and according to him, the second respondent be directed to take decision on their claim itself. As such, he is confining his prayer to Clause C:

¶12

"(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to re-fix the Grade Pay, pay scales and other consequential benefits of the Petitioners in accordance with law within specified time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶13

Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners

¶14

who are five in number has argued that so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he was appointed in the lecturer in Bio Technology on 11.08.1997 in fourth respondent-institution, petitioner no. 2 as lecturer in English, petitioner no. 3 lecturer in Mathematics on 08.03.2000 and petitioner no. 4 in lecturer in Computer Application and petitioner no. 5 in Chemistry. It is further the case of the writ petitioners that their service conditions are governed by Government Order dated 03.05.2018 and the second respondent, Director Technical Education, U.P. by virtue of an order dated 24.07.2018 has directed for implementation of the government order dated 03.05.2018 in true spirit. It is the further stand of the writ petitioners that even in facts as per the Government order dated 09.04.2018 and the fitment table 5 pertaining to pay fixation in 2006 AICTE pay-scale, the writ petitioners are entitled to the basic pay of Rs. 9,000 against the pay-scale of Rs. 7,600.

¶15

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has further invited the attention of the Court towards the document dated 28.05.2022, annexure-5 to the writ petition, relevant extract at page 63 wherein the writ petitioners had been made entitle to Rs. 7,600 (grade pay) instead of Rs. 9,000 (grade pay). A chart at page 85 of the paperbook has been referred to in order to substantiate the argument that with respect to petitioner No. 2, he is getting Rs. 1,16,767 in case 9,000 grade pay is made applicable, the gross salary would be Rs. 1,57,898. In nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that their claim is to be considered in the light of the Government order in question.

¶16

Shri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand submits that no fruitful purpose will be solved in detaining the writ petition on board and according to him he does not possess to file counter affidavit, the writ petition be disposed of, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to represent his cause before the second respondent.

¶17

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondent granting liberty to the writ petitioner to represent his cause before the second respondent while filing a comprehensive representation along with itself attested copy of the writ petition and in case the said representation is preferred, the second respondent shall accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner, strictly in accordance with law bearing in mind the entitlement of the writ petitioners for the relief sought as well as the statutory enhancement and the government orders governing the field. Since, the writ petition has been

¶18

disposed of without seeking any response from the respondent, thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter and the second respondent shall accord consideration without being influenced or obsessed by any of the observation made hereinabove within a period of two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 Ashutosh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar and 4 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. (Smt.) Sunita Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Mahendra Giri Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dr. Hari Ram Yadav Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Smt. Sheelwati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of School Education, Aligarh Muslim University and 3 Others

Dr. Adesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others