Allahabad High Court
Upendra Kumar Shukla (Pno No. ... vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 25 January, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2055 of 2021
Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Shukla (Pno No. 860440552)
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.
Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following principal reliefs:-
"(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding opposite parties to provide the benefits to petitioner who is working as Pump Attendant a parity of Judgment & order dated 01.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.4127 (S/S) of 2007; Satya Prakash Sharma & Others Vs. Stae of U.P. and others which was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the Special Appeal No.369(D) of 2019 on 30.08.2019 as well as dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal No.26389 of 2019 on 18.11.2019 respectively.
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to provide the petitioner to pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.04.2001 and revised pay scale time to time as per the recommendation of Pay Commission Report alongwith all consequential benefits."
Learned counsel for petitioner states that given judgments referred in the relief clause is squarely covered by the present case and his representation should be decided taking into consideration the said judgment. He further states that grievance of petitioner would be sufficiently met in case representation of petitioner for the said purposes is considered and decided in a time bound manner.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case representation of the petitioner is decided by appropriate authority in accordance with law.
In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent No.1, Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow raising all his grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of his claim within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, respondent No.1 shall consider and decide the same also taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation is placed before him.
It is made clear that this court has not applied itself on the merits of the case and all questions are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021
Shubhankar
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
