Bal Krishna Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1466 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3430 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Sharma And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have made following relief:

"(I). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus , commanding the respondent No.3 to pay the entire retiral dues and also pay the pension to the petitioners month to month, considering his seasonal service as regular service as per circular dated 01.08.1967 as well as per Rule 26 of the Financial Hand Book Part-II, within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(II). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus , directing the respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioners, considering the judgment dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh as well as in the Case of Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No. 581/2020, Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court.

........."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as seasonal collection amin on 8th August, 1989 and their services as collection amins were regularized on 19/22nd December, 2016. Petitioner no.1 retired from the post of collection amin on 30th June, 2021, whereas the petitioner no.2 retired from the said post on 31st July, 2020 but the pension and other retirarl benefits of the petitioners have not been paid after calculating the services rendered by them as seasonal collection amins i.e. from 1989. For the said grievance, they have made representation before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur i.e. respondent no.3 but no decision has been taken thereon till date, hence the present writ petition.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that in case, a fresh representation is moved by petitioners for redressal of their grievances individually, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioners may make a fresh representation individually, ventilating all their grievances, supported by such documents, as they may be advised, before respondent no.3, within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with the relevant laws, rules and Government Orders, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within three months thereafter, if there is no legal impediment

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

Order Date :- 26.4.2022

Sushil/-