Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ram Prasad And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 5967 ALL

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 5967 ALL
Judgement Date : 9 July, 2019

Allahabad High Court
Ram Prasad And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10068 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Prasad And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Upadhyay,Raj Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashish Agrawal for the respondent no. 6.

In somewhat identical facts and circumstances Writ Petition No. 24996 of 2018 (M. Gopinathan Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been dismissed vide following orders passed on 3.12.2018:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Agrawal learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and the learned Standing Counsel.

This petition impugns an order dated 18 September 2018 in terms of which the claim of the petitioner for absorption in government service has come to be negatived.

The petitioner was an employee of the U.P. State Cement Corporation (Company in liquidation). He essentially seeks the benefits of a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others Civil Appeal No. 1056 of 2010.

Undisputedly the petitioner herein was not a party to the said Civil Appeal. As is evident from a reading of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, no general directions were issued. The respondent while denying the claim of the petitioner has rested his decision on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 382 of 2016 Ramji And 6 Others Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and Others. In the said decision the Division Bench has, in turn, placed reliance upon its own decision rendered on Writ Petition No. 5979 of 2016 Raj Dhani Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others wherein the claim of the petitioner therein was dismissed with the following pertinent observations:-

"Benefit of pay protection already accorded prior to commencement of Rules 2003 has been saved, and further who have not been absorbed, qua them provision has been made for age relaxation in upper age limit for direct recruitment to such Group 'C' and 'D' post which are outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission to the extent he has rendered his continuous service in substantive capacity in the concerned Government Department or Public Corporation in completed years Except for these protection, no other benefit has been saved or extended.

11. In Civil Appeal No.9165-9172 of 2010, the appellants had represented to the respondents regarding their absorption and other benefits but so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was simply fence-sitter and on the basis of judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Verma's case (supra) he has come up from deep slumber and now has prayed for direction that his claim is liable to be considered in the light of judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Verma's case.

12. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. "

Evidently, the petitioner has simply chosen to sit on the sidelines and has now sought benefits flowing from the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma. Following the view taken by the Division Bench in Ramji as well as Raj Dhani Singh, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the order impugned.

Writ petition is dismissed."

Present petitioners were absorbed in 2009. No grievance at that stage was raised by them regarding correct fixation of their salary. They continued to work and have subsequently retired. It is after their retirement that they have now approached the authorities for correct fixation of their salary. Such belated claim is not liable to be entertained merely because, in the context of certain other persons, directions have been issued by the State consequent upon the orders passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1056 of 2010.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

Ranjeet Sahu

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter