Disposed

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024WRIA/35682/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a writ petition seeking pension benefits for work charge employees. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the State Government for a reasoned decision within six weeks, noting the State’s prior undertaking to the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioners to prefer a fresh representation within ten days for a speaking reasoned order within six weeks.

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71671

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35682 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Raghu Raj And 10 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Pandey,S.P. Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

" I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to provide pension and other post retirement benefits to the petitioners by counting their service rendered in the work charge establishment as qualifying service for the said purpose.

¶10

II) Issue any other writ, order or direction deemed fit and proper in factual matrix of the case.

¶11

III) Kindly allow the petition with cost. "

¶12

Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 5, 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.

¶13

Sri Somvanshi has drawn attention of this Court towards one letter dated 15.6.2024 preferred by the Executive Engineer,

¶14

Karya Prabharit Adhisthan Prakoshta on behalf of Engineer-inChief, Irrigation Department addressing to all concerned Executive Engineers apprising that the payment of pension to all the employees who are the petitioners in re: Prem Singh has been made and who are not petitioners in the petition in re: Prem Singh 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. The letter dated 15.6.2024 is taken on record.

¶15

Sri Somvanshi 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.

¶16

Therefore, in view of the above, without entering into merits of the issue, this Court hereby dispose of this petition giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party no. 1, i.e., State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, P.W.D. Department, Civil Secretariat U.P., Lucknow ventilating their grievance taking all pleas and grounds which are available to them enclosing therewith the copy of their earlier representations, if any, which are necessary for disposal of the representation, within a period of ten days' from today and if such representation(s) is/are preferred by the petitioners within the aforesaid stipulated time, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same strictly, by speaking and reasoned order 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.

¶17

It is needless to say that if the petitioners enclose the copy of the aforesaid letter dated 15.6.2024, the authority concerned shall look into the aforesaid letter while disposing of the representation(s) of the petitioners.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 A. Verma

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Manisha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Jai Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shubham Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation and Others

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others