Disposed¶12

Sanjeev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2024/3723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wage employees; minimum pay scale parity; Sabha Shanker Dube (2019) 12 SCC 297 referred in counsel's contention; fresh representation directed to respondent no.2; reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; merits left open; writ petition disposed; WRIT - A No. 3723 of 2024; Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; order dated 14.5.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:36872.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to submit individual representations within two weeks before respondent no.2, which shall decide them by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of submission, along with certified copy of the order. ¶12

Sanjeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36872

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3723 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although both the petitioners are working on daily wage basis since the year 2013 and 2014 respectively yet they are not being paid the minimum pay scale despite the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others- (2019) 12 SCC 297 , wherein the Apex Court has held that daily wagers/temporary employees would be entitled for grant of minimum pay scale at par with regularly appointed persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing at some length submits that with regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.2 which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶11

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioners submit individual representations within two weeks from today before respondent no.2 then respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 A. Katiyar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjeev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Krishna Pandey Vs Thestate of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Industries Development Deptt. Anubhag-I Lucknow and Others

Puran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Jageshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 5 Others

Smt. Anari Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Mohd. Rafiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others