Disposed

Mohan Lal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2023WRIA/19675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two work agents appointed in 1998, 1999, and 1983 as daily wage workers whose services were regularized in 2003 but whose pay scales remained unchanged after 2010 promotion. The High Court directed the competent authority to review the 2018 representation and decide the claim within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the competent authority to consider the representation dated 13.04.2018 and dispose of it within two months via a reasoned order.

Mohan Lal Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:224114

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19675 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohan Lal Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Agrawal,Ravi Shanker Rawet

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

Petitioners who are regularly working as a Work Agent in the respondent department was initially appointed as Mate in the year 1998, 1999 and 1983 respectively on daily wage basis. Later on their services came to be regularised in the year 2003. However, upon promotion being made in the year 2010, the salaries of the petitioners have not been revised to make it admissible as per the post upon which they has been discharging their duties. This anomaly in the pay scale, according to petitioners, deserves rectification at the earliest.

¶8

It is submitted by the petitioners that in this regard they have already represented the matter before the competent authority namely the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Lucknow on 13.04.2018 upon which certain recommendations have been made, however nothing further transpired in the matter.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that representation of the petitioners dated 13.04.2018 may be directed to be disposed of by the competent authority namely respondent No.4 Executive Engineer in accordance with law.

¶10

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to look into and consider the claim of the petitioners as raised in their representation dated 13.04.2018 and dispose of the same within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by means of a reasoned and speaking order.

¶11

Order Date :- 28.11.2023 P Kesari

¶12

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohan Lal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Yadav and 2 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

Upendr Kumar Vs the Union of India and 5 Others

Lakshmi Kant Mishra Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Chhatrapal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jyoti Rani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mrityunjay Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others