Dismissed¶16

Smt.Kalpana Pandey v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025WRIA/1837/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

compassionate appointment; widow of deceased employee; writ of mandamus against private employer; private sugar mill; Ramgarh Chini Mills; heir appointment; Wage Board circular/notification dated 31.01.1991; Government notification No.3158(III)/XXXVI-2-101(III)-79 dated July 15, 1982; United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. 2007 (114) FLR 872; no statutory violation; mandamus not issuable against private respondent; WRIT - A No. 1837 of 2002; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Court No. 28; Brij Raj Singh, J.; dismissed; no costs; alternative legal remedy; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:19620; order dated 8.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no statutory violation in the present case. ¶15

Smt.Kalpana Pandey Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19620

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1837 of 2002

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt.Kalpana Pandey Respondent :- Deputy Labour Commissioner And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.R.K.Srivastava,Abhinav Singh,Anjani Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Me,Gaurav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Sinha

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

¶8

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 1 to take effective steps for providing employment to the petitioner under opposite party no. 2.

¶9

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to provide suitable employment to the petitioner in place of her deceased husband who died while serving as a permanent employee of the opposite party no. 2.

¶10

iii. issue appropriate order or direction by way of interim mandamus to the opposite Parties to provide suitable employment to the petitioner and pay her wages as applicable on the post according to her entitlement."

¶11

Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has raised preliminary objection that Ramgarh Chini Mills is a private sugar mill and the writ of mandamus cannot be issued against a private respondent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the widow of Late Shekhar Pandey, who was employed by the respondent no.2, admittedly a private respondent. He further submitted that Wage Board has issued circular/notification dated 31.01.1991, wherein it is provided that all Vacuum pan Sugar Factories in the State shall enforce Government notification No.3158(III)/XXXVI-2-101(III)-79 dated July 15, 1982 regarding appointment of heirs as per conditions laid down therein. The agreements entered into at unit level will continue to be acted upon according to terms of settlement in this respect. He has further submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to take decision

¶13

in view of the aforesaid Notification dated 31.01.1991.

¶14

Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the Notification dated 31.01.1991 has been considered in the case of United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. versus State of U.P. and others; 2007 (114) FLR 872 and he has relied upon paragraph no.9 in which it has been held that the said notification was issued illegally, the same can not be sustained. He has also submitted that after looking into the aforesaid factual aspect as well as aforesaid judgement at this juncture, the petitioner cannot get any relief and her writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that there is no statutory violation in the present case. The respondent no.2 is a private respondent against whom writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

¶16

The present writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶17

However, it is open to the petitioner to see any other legal remedy as available under the law.

¶18

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Anupam S/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt.Kalpana Pandey v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kalpana Pandey v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Shukla Vs the Director Local Bodies State of U.P.

Chaandradaiya Prakash Misra Vs State of U.P. and Others

Aleem Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy.

Mohammad Yaseen and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Its Prin. Secy. Sahkarita ANUBHAG-1

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai Vs State of U.P.through Secy.