Disposed

Vartika Shukla and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Women and Child Development New Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024WRIA/8661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL by two contractual employees challenging their alleged termination when the Mahila Shakti Kendra Scheme was replaced by the Hub for Empowerment of Women Scheme. The court directed the State Government to decide on absorption or preference for existing employees and mandated their continued service pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Additional Chief Secretary to decide on absorption/preference of petitioners under new scheme and to continue petitioners on posts and decide on honorarium till that decision.

Vartika Shukla and Another vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67386

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8661 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vartika Shukla And Another Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Women And Child Development New Delhi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Abhishek Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Umesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 5. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.6 stands dispensed with.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 31.03.2024 in Writ-A No. 5250 of 2024 while challenging alleged oral orders of termination in the other connected writ petitions. Further prayer for issuance of a direction to the concerned authority to permit petitioner to discharge their duties on the respective post in the Hub for Empowerment of Women Scheme from the relevant post held by petitioner under the Mahila Shakti Kendra Scheme in pursuance of directions dated 17.10.2023 has been sought alongwith prayer for remuneration to petitioner.

¶8

On 12.07.2024, the following order had been passed:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Umesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and learned State counsel for opposite parties no.2 to 5.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.

¶11

Learned State counsel is granted three days' time to seek instructions in this matter particularly with regard to the fact as to whether petitioner being a contractual employee is being replaced by another contractual employee.

¶12

List this case on 19.07.2024, as fresh. "

¶13

Whereafter on 19.07.2024, the following order had been passed:-

¶14

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Umesh Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶16

3. In pursuance of directions issued earlier, learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 18.07.2024 as per which it has been submitted that the earlier scheme of Mahila Shakti Kendra has been discontinued and a new scheme has been introduced by the Central Government vide notification dated 14.07.2022 under the name District Hub for Empowerment of Women due to which the services of petitioner have been discontinued and no other contractual employee has replaced petitioner.

¶17

4. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to the letter dated 17.10.2023 issued by the Director, Women Welfare, State of U.P. to submit that the said letter clearly indicates the fact that although the earlier scheme has been discontinued w.e.f. 31.03.2022 but is to be subsumed under the new scheme and directions have also been issued for absorbing persons such as petitioner who were engaged under the earlier scheme.

¶18

5. It is also submitted that petitioner's contract dated 01.02.2019 clearly indicates the fact that petitioner engagement would continue till the Mahila Shakti Kendra Scheme continued but has also adverted to the fact that since petitioner is to be subsumed/absorbed in the new scheme, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to pass the impugned order.

¶19

6. With regard to aforesaid, learned State Counsel is granted ten days' time to file a short affidavit.

¶20

7. List this case on 02.08.2024, as fresh. Learned counsel for Union of India shall also obtain instructions as to whether the persons employed on contractual basis under the earlier MSK Scheme are required to be absorbed/continued under the new scheme. "

¶21

In pursuance thereto, supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 & 3 is taken on record.

¶22

While learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated the submissions advanced earlier pertaining to absorption of petitioner under the Hub for Empowerment of Women Scheme, learned State Counsel has adverted to paragraph 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed today to submit that as yet there is no proposal for absorption of persons working under the Mahila Shakti Kendra Scheme to under the Hub for Empowerment of

¶23

Women Scheme. It is submitted that a resolution has thereafter been passed on 23.08.2024 to the effect that persons working under the old Scheme would be given preference for recruitment in the new Scheme and in terms thereof, cases of petitioners would also be considered in the same light.

¶24

However, he has not been able to explain the directions issued on 17.10.2023.

¶25

It has been submitted by learned State Counsel that matter as of now is pending consideration before the State Government pertaining to grant of approval for initiating recruitment process under the new Scheme and for granting preference to persons such as petitioners who were employed on contract basis under the old Scheme.

¶26

Considering the letter dated 17.10.2023 and the proposal dated 23.08.2024, it becomes evident that the aspect pertaining to absorption of such as petitioner engaged under the earlier Scheme or for purposes of providing preference to them under recruitment to be made under new Scheme is required to be considered by the State Government.

¶27

In view thereof, the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Government of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow is directed to take a final decision with regard to the aforesaid aspects expeditiously prior to granting approval for recruitment to be made under the Hub for Empowerment of Women Scheme specifically as to whether persons such as petitioners employed under the Mahila Shakti Kendra Scheme are required to be absorbed under the new Scheme or merely to be provided preference in recruitment to be initiated for the same.

¶28

In view of letter dated 17.10.2023 as well as the fact that as yet no new recruitment have been made by the opposite parties for smooth operation of the schemes, it is directed that till decision is taken by the State Government, petitioners will be continued on their respective posts either under the old or the new Schemes whichever may be in force.

¶29

The State Government shall also take a decision with regard to payment of honorarium to petitioners for work

¶30

rendered by them. Decision shall be taken in terms of directions and guidelines issued by the Central Government on the aforesaid aspect.

¶31

With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 prabhat

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vartika Shukla and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Women and Child Development New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vartika Shukla and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Women and Child Development New Delhi 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

Kunwar Pal Singh Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director and 3 Others

Roop Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Crime and Investigation Lko.

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Ministry Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Newal Kannaujia vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayti Raj Lko and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Shatrughan Lal vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others