Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman and 6 Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50663

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6938 of 2007

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava And 6 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman And 6 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 commanding/ directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization/ regular appointment on Group-C post in view of the Regularization Rules, 1998.

¶9

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the advertisement contained in Annexure no.6 issued by the opposite parties to the writ petition so far it relates to the petitioners.

¶10

iii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue to work and discharge their duties as Group-C employee in the department without any hindrance and they may be paid their salary/ allowances attached to the said post.

¶11

iv) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties not to fill up the Group-C post until and unless the case of the petitioners are considered on the said post.

¶12

v) 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Factual matrix of the case is that all the petitioners have

¶15

completed more than 15 to 20 years of service with the respondents on Group-C post and they have been appointed in the years 1982-1987 and since then they are continuously working with the respondents on their respective posts on daily wage basis.

¶16

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.

¶17

The law settled by this Court with regard to regularization in 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 1.8.2023 GK Sinha

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mata Prasad Vs U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam through Its 2 Ors.

Om Prakash Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue and 3 Ors.

K.C. Srivastava Vs Bhagirath Grameen Bank

Ms.Sangya Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.through Secy.

Ram Kishan S/O Jagesjwar Prasad and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. Appoint and Personal and Ors.

Abdul Malik Second Bail Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.