Disposed

Rajkumar Chauhan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023WRIA/17564/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged alleged pay discrimination between directly recruited and promoted Sub Inspectors during training. The Court directed the State to dispose of a representation invoking Division Bench precedent within two months, issuing a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 03.06.2023 strictly according to law considering cited judgments within two months.

Rajkumar Chauhan and 8 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200394

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17564 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajkumar Chauhan And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Saurabh Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Devesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

Petitioners, who have directly applied for the post of Sub Inspector, were only paid stipend during the training period, whereas, the candidates who had been in police force and had also applied for direct selection as Sub Inspector, were given salary during the training period as Sub Inspector.

¶8

Sri Devesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that this controversy of discrimination meted out to such Sub Inspectors has come to be addressed to and resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in Alok Kumar Singh & 5 Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors being Special Appeal No. 169 of 2020 decided on 08.09.2021 . The said judgment had been unsuccessfully appealed against before the Supreme Court as Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 798 of 2022 was dismissed in lemini on 04.02.2022. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant paragraph of the Division Bench judgment which is reproduced hereunder:

¶9

"The perusal of the circular does not make distinction between direct recruitment and promotion by limited department examination to the post of Sub-Inspector. Para 3 of the circular of 1979 makes it clear that many candidates apply for the post of Sub-Inspector by direct recruitment and when they are selected, tender resignation. It was clarified that resignation is not required to be accepted rather the candidate should be sent on training so that they may get the benefit of leave salary. The circular of 1979 makes it clear that the period of training would be treated to be towards the leave to the extent it is available in the credit of the employee.

¶10

Learned Single Judge, however, decided the writ petition on the premises different than required to be considered. It is no doubt that the appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector was to be given after successful completion of training but for that reason alone, the circular of year 1965, as clarified in the year 1979, could not have been ignored. It is more so when the Apex Court has directed to extend the similar benefit to the appointee on the post of Sub-Inspector though it was out of the limited department examination but the respondents having not made any difference in the direct recruitment and limited department examination, the petitioner appellants should have been extended the benefit of the circular of 1965 and 1979. "

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have already approached the competent authority in the matter namely the respondent no. 4 raising grievance through representation made on 03.06.2023, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 13 to the petition and wants that the same may be directed to be disposed of in the light of law laid down by the Division Bench, affirmed in SLP.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel could not meet the argument as far as Division Bench judgment is concerned but has no objection to the request that the representation may be considered and disposed of strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to look into and consider the grievance/ claim set up by the petitioners in their representation dated 03.06.2023 and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law considering the judgment cited herein above as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶14

Needless to add that the order to be passed by the competent authority, as directed herein above, shall be reasoned and speaking one.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Deepika

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumar Chauhan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Chauhan and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vivek Prakash Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vineeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sonam Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Ilias and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lalit Mohan Vs State of Up and 2 Other