Allahabad High Court
Beni Ram & Anr. vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3104 of 2021
Petitioner :- Beni Ram & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Agriculture & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Misra,Prabhat Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the following primary relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties particularly opposite party No.2 to re-fix the petitioners pension after providing promotional pay scale in Subordinate Agriculture Service (S.A.S.) Group-II (Class-III) from the date when their juniors have been given along with arrears of salary, and arrears of pensionary benefits thereon and other consequential benefits."
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the controversy involved is this writ petition is no longer res integra as the same stands settled by the judgment and order dated 19.05.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6368 (S/S) of 1997. Therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of the said judgment and pray for extending the benefit of the same.
4. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel without disputing the ratio laid down by this Court in the order dated 19.05.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6368 (SS) of 1997 states that the petitioners cannot be said to be similarly situated to Writ Petition No.6368 (SS) of 1997 which was filed by Gukaran Prasad Kanaujia and three others as they were in service and the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners after their retirement.
5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners requested that the petitioners had retired after attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner No.1 retired on 31.03.1999 and petitioner No.2 retired on 31.07.2005 and the petitioners were not having the knowledge of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, they could not approach to this court earlier.
6. Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioners to move a representation to the Director, Agriculture State of U.P. within a period of two weeks from today annexing therewith a copy of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2006 passed by this Court in Writ petition No.6368 (SS) of 1997. In case such a representation is made the same shall be considered and decided by the Director of Agriculture, U.P. in view of directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2018 (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that since the petitioners have already retired, in case the competent authority finds that the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit granted by this court, the same shall be extended notionally to the petitioners i.e. to say that they would only be entitled for fixation of their pension on the basis of same.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021
Shubhankar
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
