Disposed

Ranjeet Singh and 10 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2025WRIA/3229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought salary from April 2015 relying on a coordinate-bench judgment in Shiv Pratap Maurya covering similarly situated MPHW workers. Respondents did not dispute coverage. The court disposed of the petition directing consideration of their representation in light of that judgment within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners' representation per Shiv Pratap Maurya judgment; decision by reasoned order within four weeks of fresh representation filed within one week.

Ranjeet Singh and 10 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17154

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3229 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh And 10 Others

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And Family Welfare U.P. Lko. And 4 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra

¶8

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for respondent nos.1,3,4 and 5 and Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶10

Through this petition the petitioners has prayed for the following relief:-

¶11

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

¶12

i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite parties to provide due salary of the petitioners from 01.04.2015 to till today in pursuance to Hon'ble High Court order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 1453 of 2014 Shiv Pratap Maurya and 667 and others Versus State of U.P. and others.

¶13

ii. Issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioners.

¶14

Allow the writ petition of the Petitioners with costs."

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that their case is squarely covered by the judgement of Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. versus State of U.P. passed in WRIT - A No. - 1453 of 2014 along with connected matters.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this fact that the

¶17

case of the petitioners is covered by the judgement of Shiv Pratap Maurya(supra).

¶18

Perused the record so also the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Maurya (supra). The operative portion of the judgement is extracted below:-

¶19

"27. Article 23 of the Constitution of India has wider implications and scope regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

28. In the present case, the interim order has been granted by this court which is quoted in the preceding paragraph in favour of the petitioners permitting them to continue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chet Verma and others Vs. the State of U.P. and others (2020) 3 SCT 640 (SC) has held that if the petitioners have served, as per the interim order, obviously they have to be paid the salary for the period they have rendered their services. Non payment of salary to them for the period they have served under the interim order or otherwise would tantamount to taking begar from them, which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. For convenience, the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶21

"1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

2. Leave Granted.

¶23

3. Since the Appellants have served as per the interim order, obviously they have to be paid the salary for the period they have rendered their services. Non-payment of salary to them for the period they have served under the interim order or otherwise would tantamount to taking begar from them, which is prohibited Under Article 23 of the Constitution of India

¶24

4. Therefore, we direct that the Appellants shall be entitled to salary for the period they have rendered their services. The salary, if not paid, shall be paid to the Appellants within four weeks from today.

¶25

5. It is made clear that if the Appellants have been paid the salary for the aforesaid period, the same shall not be recovered from them.

¶26

6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of. "

¶27

29. The Share/Matching Grant of the Government of India and State Governments is provided in Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines, 2010, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶28

"3.1:- Considering the need for MPHW(Male) for the disease control programs, the Government of India decided to provide financial assistance to states for contractual remuneration of the MPHW (Male) at 53,544 PHCs in 235 high focus districts for a period of three years. The remuneration will be paid at a rate of Rs. 6000 per MPHW per month. The expenditure will be on sharing basis, 85% by NRHM and 15% by State Governments for the first year followed by 75% and 25% for the second year and 65% and 35% for the third years."

¶29

30. Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines, 2010 provides for matching grant by the the Government of India and State Government for the purpose of payment salaries to the MPHWs (Male).

¶30

31. As per Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines, 2010, the Government of India and the State of U.P. is directed to ensure the payment to the petitioners who were working till the period they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is served.

¶31

32. For the period beyond three years petitioners shall be paid by the State Government till they had actually worked . The State Government shall make payment within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after verification of 394 MPHWs (Male) of their actual working.

¶32

33. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, the present petition is allowed."

¶33

This Court has also noticed the letter dated 13.11.2014 (Annexure-4 to the writ petiton) and letter dated 13.11.2019 written by Chief Medical Officer to Director Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, which is on record as Annexure-6 to the petition. Prima facie , it appears that the controversy involved in this case is settled by judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shiv Pratap Maurya's case.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they may be permitted to take a decision in the light of judgement of Shiv Pratap Maurya (supra).

¶35

Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgement of Shiv Pratap Maurya (supra). In case, the petitioner files a fresh representation within a period of one week to the opposite party no.1, the same shall be decided by passing a speaking and reasoned order within further period of four weeks.

¶36

Order Date :- 25.3.2025

¶37

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ranjeet Singh and 10 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh and 10 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Hanif and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santoshi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Balendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sri Prabhu Nath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange (Minor Irrigation) Lko. and 3 Others

Sarita Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Child Dev. Service and Nutrition Lko. and 4 Others

Abhimanyu Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others