Allowed

Ranjit Singh Yadav Alias Ranjit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture, U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024WRIA/1118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a writ petition filed by a Mali employee challenging the denial of his claim for regular pay scale matching with similarly situated regular employees. Relying on the Supreme Court-approved judgment in Ramesh Kumar Yadav, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the response to grant minimum pay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 was quashed; and the respondents were directed to provide and pay the minimum pay scale applicable to regular employees.

Ranjit Singh Yadav Alias Ranjit Kumar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21650

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1118 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ranjit Singh Yadav Alias Ranjit Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture, U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2/Director, Horticulture & Food Processing, U.P. Lucknow and further to direct the respondents to provide the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner on the post of Mali belonging to Class IV category similarly situated persons are getting.

¶8

The petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Mali in May, 2012 and 2015 on daily wage basis, initially getting Rs. 322/- per day. In the year 2023, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent no. 2 for payment of the wages as Mali as the petitioners are fulfilling the criteria for appointment on the post of Mali. The representation of the petitioners was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.12.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the Judgment/Order of this court dated 25-01-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 16326(S/S) of 2017, inre : Ramesh Kumar Yadav Versus State of U.P. and Others . The said Judgment/Order dated 25-01-2019 was challenged in the Special Appeal Defective No 338 of 2019, by the State and the said Special Appeal Defective No. 338 of 2019 was dismissed by this court by a detailed order dated 18-092019. Against the Judgment/Order dated 18-09-2019 passed in the Special Appeal Defective No. 338 of 2019, the State preferred Special Leave to Appeal No. 2665 of 2019, before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 2211-2019 and thereafter, minimum of the pay scale was given to Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav by order dated 06-122019.

¶10

Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition, but, failed to dispute the Judgment of this court, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. He

¶11

has also failed to dispute that the case of the petitioner is not squarely covered by the said Judgment.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment/Order dated 25-01-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 16326(S/S) of 2017, inre : Ramesh Kumar Yadav Versus State of U.P. and Others , the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶13

The petitioners shall be entitled to minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees working on the same post.

¶14

The respondent no. 2 is directed to make payment of the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.3.2024 DiVYa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjit Singh Yadav Alias Ranjit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture, U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh Yadav Alias Ranjit Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture, U.P. Lucknow and 2 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

Women Constable Civil Police Personnel No. 204072490 Anjali Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Bal Krishna Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pashudhan, Lko. and 5 Others

Sindhu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 5 Others

Rameshwar Prasad Patel Meth and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. P.W.D. and Others

Abdul Razzaq Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Revenue Lucknow

Narendra Nath Agrawal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others