Allahabad High Court
Bhola Nath Sharma vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2142 of 2014
Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit,Asok Pande
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
and
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2143 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Milan Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit,Asok Pande
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State.
Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners claiming that they had been appointed as Regular Collection Amin, however, they were given the work as Seasonal Collection Amin. Large number of similarly situated persons have filed Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001; 'Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. The bunch was decided by this Court by its' judgment dated 19.08.2006. Concluding paragraph of the aforesaid judgment stated:-
"Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 19.09.2000 is hereby quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Regular collection Amin as he was duly selected under the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amin's Service Rules, 1974. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be treated as a Regular Collection Amin in service since 5th June, 1986 for the purposes of seniority etc. except the salary for the period during which he did not work on the principle of 'No work, No pay'. There will be no order as to costs."
Petitioner along with one Sri Ram Milan Dubey had also filed a writ petition before this Court and his writ petition was numbered as Writ Petition No.784 of 2011; 'Ram Milan Dubey and Others Vs. State of U.P and others', in which on 06.09.2011 following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After comparing the facts of the present case as well as the case of writ petition no. 4031(S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Naraian Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), I find that the controversy involved in the matter has already been settled by this Court by means of judgement and order dated 19th of August, 2006 passed in writ petition no. 4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narayan Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Ors.). Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgement and accordingly direction is issued.
Both the writ petitions are disposed of finally."
Thus, benefit of the judgment of Pratap Narain Pandey (Supra) case was also granted to the petitioners. On the basis of the same, petitioners were treated to be appointed from 05.06.1986, however, they were paid their salary from the year 2012 onward. Now, petitioners have approached this Court claiming that they are entitled for their salary w.e.f. 05.06.1986. The same can happen only, in case petitioners were actually working from 05.06.1986 in view of the judgment dated 19.08.2006 passed in Pratap Narain Pandey (Supra) case. The same is a question of fact, therefore, learned counsel for petitioners after arguing at some length, submits that grievance of petitioners would be sufficiently met in case representation of petitioners for the said purposes is considered and decided by respondent no.2 District Magistrate, Amethi in a time bound manner.
Learned standing counsel has no objection to the same.
In view thereof, petitioners are permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to respondent no.2 District Magistrate, Amethi, raising all their grievance, annexing therewith a copy of this writ petition along with annexures and all the documents in support of their claim within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
In case such a representation is moved by petitioners, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same 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, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021
Arti/-
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
