Allahabad High Court
District Rural Development ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5390 of 2021
Petitioner :- District Rural Development Agency
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
In pith and substance, the petitioner-Agency is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give arrears of salary according to 6th Pay Commission and pension alongwith other retiral benefits, meant for State Government employee prior to 2005, to the retired DRDA Employees in view of the Government Order dated 23.06.1981, 20.10.1983, 05.11.1988, 17.03.1994, 15.06.2011.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench dictum of this Court in Service Single no.14930 of 2017 (Km. Kalyani Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others) dated 05.05.2021 and submits that services of the petitioner comes under State.
In the aforesaid writ petition, following issues have been framed for adjudication before the Full Bench:-
"(i) Whether in view of the provisions of Government Order dated 17.3.1994, particularly clause 9 thereof, the provisions of the Rules of 1974 would be application upon the employees of DRDA?
(ii) Whether the judgment of Division Bench in State of U.P. vs. Ajeet Kumar Shahi, Special Appeal No.714 of 2015, requires reconsideration in light of the Government Orders dated 17.3.1994 and 18.7.2016?"
The Full Bench vide order dated 05.05.2021 has answered the said issues as follows:-
"Consequently, the questions referred to this Bench are answered as follows:-
Question No.1 : In view of the provisions of Government Order dated 17.03.1994, particularly clause 2(9), the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 would be applicable upon employees of the District Rural Development Agency:
Question No.2 : The judgment of Division Bench in Ajeet Kumar Shahi (Supra) having been passed in ignorance of Government Order dated 17.03.1994 is held not to be a good law and is, therefore, overruled."
In paragraph 52 of the order dated 05.05.2021, following observations have been made:-
"52. With regard to aforesaid submission, the opening paragraphs of Government Order dated 17.03.1994 would be referable in which the purpose of issuance of Government Order has been indicated. The Government Order clearly states that directions are being issued to regulate and bring about uniformity in service conditions of the employees of the DRDA because no service conditions for such employees have been notified as yet and since the DRDA is a registered Society, the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India would be inapplicable. It is evident that the inapplicability of Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India upon the employees of the DRDA clearly means that Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India would not automatically be applicable upon the employees of the DRDA since it is a registered society. However, there is no legal bar in either Article 309 of the Constitution of India or under the said Government Order that beneficial conditions of service pertaining to Government employees made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended to a registered society such as DRDA, which is ''State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, the submission of learned counsel for the State is clearly misconceived."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case, the Court is of the considered opinion that DRDA come under the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the relief as has been prayed is amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending for consideration.
Without adverting on the merit of the case, on consent, the writ petition stands disposed of finally with the direction that in case petitioner-Agency approaches the Competent Authority by moving a fresh representation/application, ventilating all his grievance, within three weeks from today, this Court hopes and trust that the Authority concerned would proceed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner-Agency within further period of two months, keeping in law laid down by the by the Full Bench in Km. Kalyani Mehrotra (supra) of this Court as well as observations made by this Court.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
A. Pandey
