Disposed

Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024/2457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for minimum pay scale. The court held that despite disputes over voluntary absence, the petitioner is willing to return to work as a daily wager.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to return to work as a daily wager; respondent to take petitioner back on previous or available post upon his return.

Amit Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31940

¶2

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2457 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandip Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶6

Under challenge is the order dated 13.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of minimum of pay scale as was required to be considered by this Court vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Writ A No. 8092 of 2023 in re: Amit Kumar Gupta, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the petition, has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is not working voluntarily since February 2024.

¶7

The Court had required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions.

¶8

Today, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent by the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing dated 27.03.2024 reiterates that the petitioner is not working voluntarily since February 2024 and consequently there is no ground for grant of minimum of pay scale to the petitioner.

¶9

Responding to that, learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide letter dated 08.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 13 to the petition, issued by the District Horticulture Officer, Banda it has been indicated that the petitioner is working as a

¶10

jeep driver.

¶11

Placing reliance on letter dated 08.02.2024, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said letter also indicates about working of the petitioner and thus it is apparent that the respondents have patently erred while passing the order impugned dated 13.03.2024 by indicating that the petitioner had left work in February, 2024. The contention is that the petitioner is daily wager and there would not be any occasion of he having voluntarily left work. He further submits that once it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has left his working voluntarily and even if the same is treated as gospel truth, now the petitioner is willing to return back to work as such the respondents be directed to consider taking back the petitioner on the post of jeep driver or any other work which may be available.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid more particularly when from the order impugned dated 13.03.2024 the respondents have indicated that the petitioner having voluntarily left work and the petitioner, though denies the same on the basis of the letter dated 08.02.2024 issued by the District Horticulture Officer, District Banda yet states that he is willing to return back to his work although he already claims to be working, as such the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to return back to work as a daily wager. It is provided that in case the petitioner returns back then the respondent would take back the petitioner on the post on which he was earlier working on any other post on which the work is available.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶14

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

Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 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

Brijendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 6 Others

Munish Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Krishna Kumar Srivastav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resource Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Shiv Ram Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mirtunjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others