Disposed

Ram Samujh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024WRIA/10077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking pension for daily wager and work charge employees declaring past service qualifying. Court disposed of petition in limine, granting liberty to prefer a fresh representation to the respondent. Directed the authority to decide the matter within six weeks after affirming the principle of parity. No merits examined.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to prefer a fresh representation; Respondent authority directed to decide within six weeks, treating past service as qualifying per principles of parity.

Ram Samujh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83830

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10077 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Samujh And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bali Tiwari,Shri Narayan Pandey,Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) I(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Opposite Parties to provide the pension after calculating the past services rendered by the petitoners in daily wager and work charge capacity as qualifying service for pension purpose in the interest of justice."

¶9

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.4 of the writ petition, which is an order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Apex Court in bunch of Special Leave Petitions, wherein the fact has been considered by the Apex Court that the State Government is ready and willing to comply with the common judgement and order dated 02.09.2019 in respect of the contempt petitioners. The learned counsel has further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid undertaking being given before the Apex Court, the State Government/ competent authority has passed the consequential orders making compliance of the order of the Apex Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners approached the competent authority for redressal of his grievance but to no avail, as no appropriate orders have been passed. Therefore liberty may be given to the petitioners to approach the opposite party no.1 preferring a fresh representation and direction may be issued to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, with expedition.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards one letter dated 15.06.2024 preferred by the Executive Engineer, Karya Prabharit Adhisthan Prakoshta on behalf of Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department addressing to all concerned Executive Engineers apprising that the

¶11

payment of pension to all the employees who are the petitioners in re: Prem Singh (supra) has been made and who are not petitioners in the contempt petition in re: Prem Singh (supra) shall also be entitled for the same benefit, therefore, those employees may also be provided the same benefit on the basis of principles of parity.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the authorities are making payment of pension to similarly placed employees, therefore, the same benefit may be provided to the petitioners.

¶13

Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No. 1 ventilating their grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available with them enclosing therewith the copy of their earlier representation, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation within a period of ten days' from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioners within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if it is so required, with expedition preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioners forthwith.

¶14

It is needless to say that if the petitioners enclose the copy of the aforesaid letter dated 15.06.2024, the authority concerned shall look into the aforesaid letter while disposing of the representation of the petitioners.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Junaid

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Samujh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Samujh and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and 5 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

Pramod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development( ANUBHAG-2) and 3 Others

Amar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Irrigation Dept. Lko. and 3 Others

Niyaz Ahmad Pno No. 952464745 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Jalil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others