Disposed

Rama Kant Pandey v. State of U.P.Thr.Secy Lok Nirman and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023WRIA/3094/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition by long-service daily wage electricians sought regularization and regular pay benefits denied to them. The court noted the matter was subjudiced for over 25 years before the Engineer in Chief and dismissed pending consideration, directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation within two weeks for final disposal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to file fresh comprehensive representation before Engineer in Chief within two weeks; authority to pass reasoned order within six weeks.

Rama Kant Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thr.Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49496

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3094 of 2007

¶4

Petitioner :- Rama Kant Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Secy Lok Nirman And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.M.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.

¶7

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have made following prayer:

¶8

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of regular pay scale and other service benefits on the post in question.

¶9

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the opposite parties to provide all service benefits to the petitioners, which are being provided to regular employees working in the same cadre in the department.

¶10

iii) to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

¶11

iv) to award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

¶12

Factual matrix of the case is that all the petitioners have completed more than 15 to 20 years of service with the respondents on the post of Electrician cum Helper and they have been appointed on 26.04.1985, 26.04.1985, 26.01.1986, 26.03.1986, 26.06.1986, 26.08.1986, 26.09.1988, 26.12.1988, 26.07.1989 and 26.09.1990 and since then they are continuously working with the respondents on their respective posts on daily wage basis.

¶13

The State Government to adopt uniform policy with regard to all employees whether they are working on daily wage basis or regular basis like the petitioners, are also entitled to all emoluments and service benefits like others and in pursuance of the said order with regard to their adjustment, no action has been taken by the respondents.

¶14

The law settled by this Court with regard to regularization in

¶15

view of sufficient length of service and they have to regularize the services of the petitioners in true sense without rejecting their cases due to non availability of post and other things and it is presumed that if they are working form last 15 to 20 years, the work and post both are available with the respondents.

¶16

Hon'ble Apex Court has passed orders and judgments with respect to daily wage employees for providing the minimum of pay scale. The petitioners made several representations to respondents for redressal of their grievances but all are in vain including the last representation made by them for the said purpose.

¶17

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in case direction is issued to the respondents for consideration of claim of the petitioners for regular appointment, ends of justice would be met.

¶18

He next submitted that there is no justification on the part of respondents in sitting tight over the matter and in not taking decision in regard to claim setup by the petitioners. He submitted that the act and action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature in not paying regular pay scale and other service benefits to them.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State submitted that in case claim setup by the petitioners is lying pending considering before the respondent No.2 - Engineer in chief, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Nirman Bhawan, Lucknow, he shall consider the same and pass appropriate order within a reasonable period.

¶20

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶21

On its perusal, it is evident that the matter of the petitioners is subjudiced for regular pay scale as well as regularization before respondent No.2 - Engineer in Chief for 25 to 30 years and no order whatsoever has been passed.

¶22

In view of above, there shall be no justification in keeping the writ petition pending anymore.

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh comprehensive representation ventilating their grievances in regard to regularization and regular pay scale before respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate reasoned

¶24

and speaking order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Adarsh K Singh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rama Kant Pandey v. State of U.P.Thr.Secy Lok Nirman and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Kant Pandey v. State of U.P.Thr.Secy Lok Nirman and 4 Ors.

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

Shri Lekhpal Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Culture

Anil Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.through Secy. Secondary Educlation Govt.of U.P.

Smt.Manojini Devi Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Cultural and 2 Ors.

Prem Prakash Vs State of U.P.Thr. Secy Panchyati Raj and 6 Ors.

Gajraj Vs the Deputy Director Education

Nisha Devi Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru D.M. Gonda and 5 Ors.