Disposed¶14

Anand Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024/5993/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 5993 of 2024; decided 26.11.2024 by Alok Mathur, J.; Anand Kumar v. State of U.P. and others; daily wager; Class-III post; minimum of pay scale; similarly situated employees; Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer AIR 2019 SC 220; representation to Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, U.P.; reasoned and speaking order; writ petition disposed of with directions; merits left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner may file a fresh detailed representation with respondent no.3 within three weeks, and respondent no.2 shall decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within three months; all questions on merits left open. ¶14

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, working as a daily wager on a Class-III post since 2015, is entitled to the minimum of pay scale as paid to similarly situated employees, relying on Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, AIR 2019 SC 220.

¶7

Court's answer

Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.3 (Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, U.P., 2, Sapru Marg, Lucknow) raising all his grievances, including a copy of the Supreme Court judgment in Sabha Shankar Dube (supra), within three weeks, along with a computer generated/certified copy of the order.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

If such a representation is moved, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date a computer generated/certified copy of the order along with the representation is placed before him.

¶11

Key takeaways

The court has not applied itself to the merits of the case; all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a daily wager on a Class-III post since 2015 claiming payment of minimum of pay scale at par with similarly situated employees, relying on Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, AIR 2019 SC 220. Alok Mathur, J. disposed of the petition without entering the merits: petitioner permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.3, Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, U.P., within three weeks enclosing his grievances and a copy of the Supreme Court judgment, and respondent no.2 directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within three months; all questions left open to the competent authority.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78652

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5993 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming that he is working as a daily wager on Class-III post since the year 2015, but he is not being paid minimum of pay scale as is being paid to similarly situated employees and in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in AIR 2019 SC 220, he is entitled for the said benefit.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case representation of petitioner for the said purposes is considered and decided in a time bound manner.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the same.

¶10

In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.3-Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, U.P., 2, Sapru Marg, Lucknow, raising all his grievance including a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) in support of his claim within a period of three weeks from today along with a computer generated/certified copy of this order.

¶11

In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date a computer generated/certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.

¶12

It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the

¶13

merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶14

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

¶15

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Satish

¶17

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

Anand Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 3 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

Deepak Singh Vs Sri Partha Sarthi Sen Sharma, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medi. Health and Family Welfare, Lko.and Others

Tripurari Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Civil Secretariat U.P. Lko and Another

Krishna Dutt Vs Sri Avinash Chaudhary, Presently Posted as Tehsildar Tehsil Sadar Distt. Unnao

Ityant Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Coopertive U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Harikrishna Pno No. 842620060 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 3 Others