Allowed

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2024WRIA/3416/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a daily wager seeking minimum pay scale. The court quashed an order rejecting his claim for failing to apply the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sabha Shankar Dube, remitting the matter for consideration in compliance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 06.04.2024 quashed; matter remitted to competent authority to pass fresh order within six weeks.

Vinay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34294

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3416 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent(s).

¶7

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

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner working as a Daily Wager since the year 2010 under the respondents, the minimum pay scale is not being paid to him.

¶9

Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ A No.9907 of 2023 in Re: Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The Writ Court, vide judgment & order dated 21.12.2023, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition, disposed of the petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents along with the copy of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer AIR 2019 SC 220 and the respondents were required to consider the said representation in accordance with law.

¶10

In pursuance thereof, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of minimum pay scale vide order dated 06.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, but have failed to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra).

¶11

The argument is that once the controversy is with regard to payment of minimum pay scale which has already been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) and even the writ Court had required the representation of the petitioner to be considered and the judgment of the Apex Court was also annexed with the said representation, consequently, the respondents have patently

¶12

erred in not considering the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) while rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide order impugned dated 06.04.2024.

¶13

On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel does not dispute that the order impugned does not even refer to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra).

¶14

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 06.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of minimum pay scale to him keeping in view the principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra). Let an order be passed in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 S. Shivhare

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 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

Shishupal Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Pramod Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gramya Vikas Lko. and Others

Geeta Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar Vibhag Lko. and Others

Akhilesh Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

Dev Nandan Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others