Disposed

Lallan Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/33/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Supreme Court bench disposed of a writ petition seeking assignment of duty and payment of honorarium by relying on an earlier judgment (Service Single No.12261 of 2021) which held a petitioner with similar service history and no misconduct should be given work and paid parity. The petitioner had rendered over a decade of service without complaint.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment in Service Single No.12261 of 2021, mandating assignment of duty and payment of honorarium.

Lallan Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20917

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Lallan Bharti

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Director General Provincial Guard Team/Development Team and Youth Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow with further prayer for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to assign the duty to the petitioners on the post of Prantiya Rakshak Dal and pay them honorarium as is being paid to the other similarly situated Prantiya Rakshak Dal.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of similarly situated persons, this Court has passed the order dated 7.10.2021 in Service Single No.12261 of 2021, Kapil Dev Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others. Against the said judgement and order dated 7.10.2021, the State filed Special Appeal No.131 of 2022, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.4.2022.

¶10

It is further submitted that the similar matter has been decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading one was Writ A No. 4170 of 2022.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that the controversy

¶12

involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgement and order dated 7.10.2021 passed by this Court in Service Single No.12261 of 2021 (supra) and in the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Writ A No. 4170 of 2022.

¶13

For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the judgement and order dated 7.10.2021 passed by this Court in Service Single No.12261 of 2021 (supra) is reproduced as under:-

¶14

"Considering the fact that the petitioner has rendered 7 years of long services with Prantiya Rakshak Dal and his work and conduct was not found unsatisfactory at any point of time and no complain whatsoever, was received against him, at this stage, dispensing with his service, would be inequitable. Even, if the petitioner has not been able to produce his training certificate, since he has rendered 9 years long services with the department, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to give the duty to the petitioner if there is work and pay him honorarium as is being paid to the other members of Prantiya Rakshak Dal.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is finally disposed of."

¶16

In view thereof, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgement and order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Service Single No.12261 of 2021 (supra). The petitioner has also worked for 10 years and there has been no complaint against his work and conduct.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lallan Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallan Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Mamta Gautam Vs Principal Secy.Governor Sectt. Lucknow and Ors.

Phoolmati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Child Development and Nutrition Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Saiyada Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical/Health Lko. and 4 Others

Mahendra Kumar Tripathi Pno.No. 902590207 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Km. Ruchi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dr. Kiran Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others