Dismissed

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Limited Prayagraj U.P. Thru. General Manager v. Vinod Kumar Yadav

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024CMRAD/157/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a certified miscellaneous review application challenging a judgment allowing a writ petition for service benefits. The court held that no error is apparent on the face of record and no new grounds could be raised, dismissing the petition de novo.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed at the admission stage for lack of error apparent on the face of record and raising of new grounds.

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Limited Prayagraj… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58704

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 157 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Milk Producer Cooperative Union Limited Prayagraj U.P. Thru. General Manager Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Patel

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

(Order on Application for Condonation of delay)

¶7

Review petition has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 1st February, 2024 passed in writ A No.734 of 2024.

¶8

Office has reported a delay of 178 days as on the date of filing of the review petition.

¶9

Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient and such delay in filing review petition is condoned. (Order in Memo of Review petition)

¶10

Review Petition has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 1st February, 2024 passed in writ A No.734 of 2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is error apparent on the face of record since the judgment has issued a direction to the concerned authority to take a decision with regard to grant of benefits to petitioner upon completion of satisfactory service and that such consideration would be made within a period of eight weeks.

¶12

It is submitted that in fact there is no proposal pending before Milk Commissioner on which any such consideration can take place. It is submitted that proposal for same is required to be set by the management committee of the society whereafter only such a proposal can be considered. It is therefore submitted that since there is no proposal, there can not be any consideration

¶13

and is a fact which has not been appreciated by this court.

¶14

It has also been submitted that an earlier proposal with regard to such benefits have already been rejected by the Milk Commission in view of the poor financial condition of the unit but the said order has also not been considered.

¶15

Learned counsel has also submitted that the judgment places reliance on another judgment in the case of Ram Raj Singh as indicated in paragraph 6 of the judgment but the same is inapplicable since it was rendered with regard to PCDF and not with regard to the Milk Society. Learned counsel has also submitted that this Court has failed to appreciate that as per balance sheet of year 2023-24, unit is suffering immense losses and is incapable of providing service benefits to its employees at present.

¶16

Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited versus Balbir Kumar Baliya, Civil appeal No. 7427 of 2011, (2021) 8 SCC 784.

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for review applicant and perusal of impugned judgment, it is evident that aforesaid writ petition had been allowed primarily on the basis of admission on the part of opposite parties regarding dues of petitioner which could not be paid on account of poor financial condition of the society.

¶18

In the pleadings made in the review application, it is evident that the admission so made with regard to service benefits admissible to petitioner have not been resiled from and the only ground taken is again poor financial condition of the society, which is a fact already considered and decided in the judgment under challenge.

¶19

It is thus evident that primary ground for allowing the writ petition was the admission made on the part of opposite parties and not any other factor. The aspect of no proposal being pending before the Milk Commissioner does not have any ground of sustenance in view of fact that a direction has been issued in the impugned judgment for the Milk Commissioner as well as the society collectively to take a decision with regard to grant of benefits to petitioners upon completion of satisfactory service.

¶20

It is thus quite evident that no new ground can be raised or agitated in a review petition and since there is no error apparent on the face of record which has been made out, there is no occasion to entertain this review petition which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.8.2024

¶22

kvg/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Limited Prayagraj U.P. Thru. General Manager v. Vinod Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milk Producer Cooperative Union Limited Prayagraj U.P. Thru. General Manager v. Vinod Kumar Yadav

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

Km. Neha and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Kiran Lata @ Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Others

Yashpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Rathor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gramya Vikas Lko. and 6 Others

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Amar Singh and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Higher Edu.) Lko. and 2 Others