Disposed

C/M Anjuman Himayat Chaprasiyan U.P. Thru. Chairman Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nyay and Legal Remembrance Govt. of U.P. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024WRIA/7978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petition filed by the Employees' Association is maintainable on single court fee following Full Bench precedent. Fresh liberty granted to approach the Special Secretary with fresh representation. Opposite party directed to decide the representation with speaking order within six weeks after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Liberty granted to submit fresh representation within 10 days; opposite party to decide within six weeks.

C/M Anjuman Himayat Chaprasiyan U.P. Thru. Chairman… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65208

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7978 of 2024 Petitioner :- C/M Anjuman Himayat Chaprasiyan U.P. Thru. Chairman Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Nyay And Legal Remembrance Govt. Of U.P. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Karan Preet Kaur holding brief of Sri Bipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

¶6

By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief :

¶7

" i) issue a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pass appropriate order extending benefit of payment of salary in revised Grade pay of Rs. 1900/- to the petitioner-employees w.e.f. the date specified in Government Order dated 30.03.2016.

¶8

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of arrears of salary in revised Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- to the petitioner-employees w.e.f. the date specified in Government Order dated 30.03.2016 along with interest @ 18% per annum."

¶9

At the outset the office report and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned Standing Counsel have raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that this petition may not be maintainable on the payment of single court fee as this writ petition has been filed by the Employees Association.

¶10

On that Ms. Kaur has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order being passed by the Full Bench of this Court in re: Umesh Chanda Vinod Kumar vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and others, reported in 1984(2) LCD, page 10 , wherein the Court has held that the petition on behalf of 'Association' may be maintained if the relief claimed in the writ petition arises from the same Act and transaction and the members of the petitioner are pursuing the same cause of action. Ms. Kaur has submitted that the Chairman of the Association namely Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey has been duly authorized by the 'Union' to pursue the case of the employees by filing writ petition.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid position being settled by the Full Bench in re: Umesh Chanda Vinod Kumar (supra) .

¶12

Having notice of the judgment of Full Bench in re: Umesh Chanda Vinod Kumar (supra) the objection raised is overruled and it is held that the petition be filed on the single court fees.

¶13

The objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel as well as Office is overruled and it is held that the petition will be entertained on the single court fees.

¶14

Ms. Kaur has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 9 which is a letter dated 11.4.2019 issued by the then Registrar General of this Court addressing to the Special Secretary, Nyay V-II, Subordinate Court, Government of U.P. enhancing the Grade Pay from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 1900/- of some Class IV category Posts in the subordinate courts of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the G.O. dated 30.3.2016. In the aforesaid letter the Registrar General has requested the government to do the needful in the issue in question. She has also stated that for redressal of the grievance the competent authority has been approached time and again, therefore, a fresh liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the opposite party no. 2 preferring a fresh representation and direction may be issued to decide the same. She has also stated that the petitioner may be permitted to send the copy of that representation to opposite party no. 3 also for doing the needful.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid request of the petitioner without entering into the merits of the issue, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation within 10 days before the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Special Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow taking all his pleas and grounds and enclosing his earlier representations along with all relevant documents. If such a representation is moved the opposite party concerned is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner with speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The decision on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

Writ petition is finally disposed of .

¶17

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 20.9.2024/Om

¶19

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Anjuman Himayat Chaprasiyan U.P. Thru. Chairman Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nyay and Legal Remembrance Govt. of U.P. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Anjuman Himayat Chaprasiyan U.P. Thru. Chairman Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nyay and Legal Remembrance Govt. of U.P. Lko 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

Seraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drugs Administration Lko. and 5 Others

Naushad Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mahesh (in Adhar Mahesh Kumar) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lko.

Adil Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Om Prakash Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secretariat Administration Lko. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Saxena and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 5 Others