Disposed

Jagat Pal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lucknow and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024/1618/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking confirmation and benefits on regularized posts engaged on year-to-year basis. Court directed authorities to decide permanency issue first; service benefits consideration is consequent to permanency grant if decided favorably.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Secretary and Vice Chairman to decide permanency issue within six weeks; if granted, decide confirmation and service benefits grievance within six weeks thereafter.

Jagat Pal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51976

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1618 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagat Pal And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kirti Bhushan Mishra learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5.

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the competent authority to grant confirmation to petitioners on vacant confirmed posts in the Raibareli Development Authority and grant all consequential benefits.

¶8

It has been submitted that the petitioners were initially engaged in service on daily wage basis with the authority whereafter they were regularized in service vide order dated 27th December, 1993 by various orders. It is submitted that however their confirmation was not granted since the post on which they were engaged were not substantive and permanent but only temporary and sanctioned on a year to year basis.

¶9

It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, since petitioners were not being confirmed in service, service benefits as admissible to regular employees of the authority were not being granted and therefore petitioners filed writ petition No. 6004 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 16th March, 2021 directing the State Government as also with a copy to Vice Chairman of the authority to decide petitioners' grievances. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, vide order dated 4th August, 2021, the State Government indicated that proceedings in pursuance of directions issued by this court under way but no final decision has been taken till date by the opposite parties.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for answering opposite parties on the basis of counter affidavit filed submits that pursuant to directions issued by this court in another writ petition No. 12555 (S/S) of 2018 filed by one Mr. Ram Narain Sharma, superannuated Supervisor, who was engaged in services in a similar fashion and on a similar post as the petitioners, order dated 17th September, 2018 was passed whereby AC.P. was

¶11

granted to all such persons but pensionary benefits were refused on the ground that there was no permanency attached to the post on which the petitioners were engaged.

¶12

It is therefore submitted that until and unless the State Government sanctions permanent posts in question, there can not be any consideration by the authority for granting confirmation and other service benefits to petitioners in parity with regular employees of the authority. It is further submitted that in the earlier writ petition filed by petitioners being writ petition No. 6004 (S/S) of 2021, the issue was with regard to grant of permanency on the post on which petitioners were engaged and there was no prayer with regard to their confirmation.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that although petitioners were regularized in service but the post on which they were engaged on were not substantively or permanently sanctioned and were being extended on year to year basis. It also appears that in pursuance of directions issued by this Court vide order dated 16th March, 2021 passed in earlier writ petition, the State Government vide its letter dated 4th August, 2021 has admitted the fact that the issue pertaining to grant of permanency on the post on which petitioners have engaged is yet to be finally decided. Naturally the issue pertaining to confirmation and grant of service benefits to petitioners would be consequent to any such permission granted regarding permanency of the post.

¶14

In view of aforesaid opposite parties 1 and 3 i.e. Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Vice Chairman, Rae Bareli Development Authority, Rae Bareli respectively are conjointly directed to take a final decision with regard to issue of permanency of the post on which post petitioners are engaged. Such a decision shall be taken by the opposite parties within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said opposite parties. In case the decision is taken for granting permanency to the post on which petitioners are engaged, their grievance regarding confirmation and grant of service benefits in parity with regular employees of the authority shall also be considered and decided within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 prabhat

¶17

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

Jagat Pal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lucknow and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Pal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lucknow and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P through Secy.Higher Education

Murlidhar Vs the Director of Secondary Education Allahabad and 4 Others

Smt.Veena Srivastava Vs State Project Director D.P.E.P.Nishatganj and 3 Ors.

Smt Rukhsana Fatima Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 6 Ors.

Smt. Seema Maurya Vs Dist. Magistrate /Chairman Dist. Edu.Committee Barabanki and 3 Others

Pankaj Sachan Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Min. of Communication and 2 Others