Allahabad High Court
Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8221 of 2021
Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avneesh Tripathi,Shikhar Tandon
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner who was initially appointed on daily wages, was absorbed in the regular establishment of the respondents as Amin on 31 October 2000. He raised a dispute with respect to pay fixation which travelled to the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and was ultimately decided in favour of the petitioner on 11 March 2015. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State by way of a writ petition which came to be dismissed on 05 November 2019 in the following terms:-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as taking into consideration the finding, which is based on the judgment of this Court, given by the Tribunal while allowing the claim petition No.1804 of 2013 as well as contents of order dated 16.08.2017 and the fact that after lapse of more than four years, the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by the State-petitioners by means of the present writ petition filed in August, 2019, we are not inclined to interfere in the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
The aforesaid judgment was then questioned by the State before the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. which too came to be dismissed on 01 February 2021 with the following observations: -
"Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of Rs.25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the same period of time.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid."
The petitioner has now approached this Court since according to him he has been wrongfully denied the benefits of Assured Career Progression which should have been extended from 01 January 1986.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the second respondent, states that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merits being kept open, the claim of the petitioner, as noticed above, shall be duly examined in accordance with law and a reasoned decision in respect thereof communicated with expedition and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order.
Accordingly, this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
Rakesh
