Disposed

Lachhuman Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2024WRIA/7071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular employees of U.P. Jal Nigam challenged orders sending them on deputation to local bodies by 'body shopping'. The court noted lack of consent from borrowing department and employees, resulting in unpaid salary. The court directed the State to file an affidavit and pay salary until employees can join the local body.

What did the court decide?

Directed State to file personal affidavit within three weeks explaining reasons for non-joinment. Ordered State to pay salaries and arrears to petitioners until permitted to join local body.

Lachhuman Singh and 6 Others vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7071 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Lachhuman Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The regular employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam are before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 as well as the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, copies of which are annexure 1 and 2 to the petition respectively.

¶7

By the aforesaid orders, the petitioners along with several others have been sent on deputation by indicating them to be the surplus regular field employees on the basis of "body shopping".

¶8

The contention is that by means of the order impugned, the petitioners who were all regular employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam have been sent to various local bodies on the basis of the aforesaid orders. Despite the petitioners having been sent to Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau i.e. respondent No.6, the petitioners have not been permitted to join by respondent No.6 with the result that the petitioners have not received any salary since September, 2023. Various other employees who were also sent to various other local bodies have also not been permitted to join on the ground of the local bodies facing financial crisis itself.

¶9

It cannot be a case that on the one hand, the regular

¶10

employees of the Jal Nigam are treated to be surplus employees and on the other hand, they are sent on deputation to local bodies inasmuch as, deputation involves three things namely (a) the consent of the parent body; (b) the consent of the borrowing department and; (c) the consent of the employee concerned.

¶11

In the instant case, it appears that although the Jal Nigam has been extremely happy to let go of the employees concerned including the petitioners but there does not appear to be consent of the borrowing department and the employees concerned, if at all the said aspect can be termed "deputation".

¶12

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that on account of not being permitted to join at the local body namely the Nagar Palika Parisha, Mau i.e. respondent No.6, a piquant situation has arisen inasmuch as the petitioners are not being paid salary since they were relieved from the U.P. Jal Nigam which is September, 2023 and despite lapse of more than a year, the petitioners are running from pillar to post in order to get their legitimate dues.

¶13

It appears that the State has come up with a novel procedure of non payment of salary on the pretext of treating the regular employees as surplus and by adopting the procedure of "body shopping" and has sent the regular employees on deputation without there being any consent of either the borrowing department or the employee concerned itself which has thus resulted in the petitioners being deprived of the salary for more than a year.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid, the respondent No.1 shall file his personal affidavit indicating as to why, despite the aforesaid orders having been issued by the State Government dated 14.07.2023 and 02.09.2023 and the petitioners having already

¶15

been relieved from the U.P. Jal Nigam are not being permitted to join with the local body i.e. the respondent No.6 on account of which the salary has not been paid to them.

¶16

Further, the State being a model employer and the prima facie fact that the situation in which the petitioners find themselves is a direct result of the orders issued by the State consequently the State shall itself pay salary to the petitioners regularly month to month including the arrears since they were relieved from the U.P. Jal Nigam till they are permitted to join with the local body for whom they have been relieved in September, 2023.

¶17

The personal affidavit would be filed within three weeks.

¶18

The instant case be de-linked from the bunch of petitions and be listed separately in the week commencing 20.01.2025.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 S. Shivhare

¶20

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

Lachhuman Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhuman Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development 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

Amit Kumar and 37 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Vipin Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Kusum Kumari Vs State of U.P.. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Horticulture and Food Processing, and Another

Smt. Sita Pati vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication Deptt. Post and 4 Others

Shamsher Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rabiya Begum vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative, Lko. and 3 Others