State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy.De… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy.De… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the Special Appeal condoned; Special Appeal dismissed, the Single Judge's judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 being free from illegality or infirmity.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, who worked as Mali for more than a decade, are entitled to payment of salary in the minimum of the pay scale, consistently with the affirmed judgment in Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., notwithstanding the State's plea that they were casual daily wagers and no sanctioned post of Mali existed.

Court's answer

Where the respondents worked as Mali for more than a decade and another similarly situated person (Ramesh Kumar Yadav) had been allowed relief which was not interfered with in the Special Appeal, the Court finds it difficult and is not persuaded to take a different view from the learned Single Judge.

Ratio / Principle

Cause shown in the affidavit supporting the delay condonation application is sufficient; delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

Key takeaways

No illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge; accordingly the Special Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Special Appeal (Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952) by the State against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Writ A No.8812 of 2022 (Jai Prakash Verma and others v. State of U.P.), whereby the respondents, who had worked as Mali for more than a decade, were granted relief regarding payment of salary in the minimum of the pay scale. Held: the respondents had worked as Mali for over a decade, and a writ petition by a similarly situated person (Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., W.P. No.16326 (S/S) of 2017, judgment dated 25.01.2009) had been allowed and was not interfered with in Special Appeal Defective No.338 of 2019; the Division Bench declined to take a different view, found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, and dismissed the appeal. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned (C.M. Application No.01 of 2024). Decided 26.03.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:17328-DB.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17328-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 402 of 2024

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of Horticulture And Food Processing Lko. And Others Respondent :- Jai Prakash Verma And Others Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Anupama Bhadauria,Vinod Kumar Shukla

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

(C. M. Application No.01 of 2024-Delay Condonation Application)

1. Heard

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant Special Appeal.

3. No objection has been filed against this application.

4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient.

5. Application is allowed and delay in filing the instant Special Appeal is condoned.

(Order on Appeal)

1. Heard Shri Prafull Yadav, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Vinod Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.8812 of 2022 "Jai Prakash Verma and others vs. State of U.P. and others".

3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the

petitioners (respondents herein) praying for a direction to the opposite parties (appellants herein) to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the minimum of the pay scale applicable from time to time during the pendency of the present writ petition.

4. The petitioners (respondents herein) had relied upon a judgment dated 25.01.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16326 (S/S) of 2017 titled Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others , which was affirmed by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.338 of 2019. SLP (Civil) No.2665 of 2019 filed by the State.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners were casual employees and had worked as daily wagers. There is no provision for payment of minimum of the pay scale to any person appointed as daily wager. There is no sanctioned post of Mali in the district.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioners (respondents herein) have worked as Mali for more than a decade and when a writ petition filed by another similarly situated person Ramesh Kumar Yadav has been allowed and the judgment so rendered has not been interfered with in the Special Appeal, we find it difficult and are not persuaded to take a different view.

7. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is hereby dismissed .

(A. K. Srivastava-I,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.)

Order Date :- 26.3.2025/Mahesh

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