Allahabad High Court
Darbari Lal vs State Of ... on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1913 of 2021
Petitioner :- Darbari Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Chini Udyog Evam Ganna Vikas&Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishana Kumar Singh,Sudhanshu Chauhan
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure payment of arrears of salary w.e.f. 15.11.2011 to 21.10.2013 with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while holding the post of Assistant, retired from Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Powaiyyan, District Shahjahanpur on 21.10.2013. He submits that certain dues were lying pending consideration before the respondents, then Writ Petition No.4712 (S/S) of 2016 (Darbari Lal & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others) was filed before this Court, which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2016, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner has been paid his dues as claimed in the earlier writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that arrears of salary w.e.f. 15.11.2011 to 21.10.2013 has still not been paid to the petitioner and in this regard, he has represented the matter before the respondent No.2 to ensure payment, as claimed in the representation with interest. He submits that despite the best effort made, no action whatsoever has been taken till date. He further submitted that in case direction is issued to consider his claim and to pass appropriate order, justice would be met.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.2 is not the appropriate authority to consider the claim of the petitioner, it is the respondent No.3 who will consider the same and till date the petitioner has not approached the respondent No.3.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to approach the respondent No.3 by way of a representation ventilating his claim for the payment of arrears of salary.
I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
In the opinion of the Court, in view of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
Accordingly, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation along with necessary documents before the respondent No.3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case such a representation is filed before the respondent No.3 within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.3 shall consider and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021
Gautam
