Allahabad High Court
Dr. Kinshuk Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3590 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dr. Kinshuk Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Women Welfare Dept. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra,Gaurav Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.3.2012 passed by Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner for counting of his past previous services rendered in Central Government for seniority and other service benefits.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he joined in the services as a Social Worker in 1991 in a project run by the Central Government for welfare of the disabled persons. The said project of the Central Government was subsequently closed and, hence, the future of the persons who are working in the said project came in cloud. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and finally decided by detailed judgment and order in the case of District Rehabilitation Officer and others Vs. Jay Kishore Maity and others in Civil Appeal No.7999 of 2002 decided on 10th November, 2006. The said judgment of the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that future of such persons cannot be left in cloud and made following directions:-
"In a case of this nature, however, we think it expedient to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Central Government has categorically stated that those employees who would opt for employment under the Central Government may be accommodated in its ongoing projects. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the concerned employees who have affirmed affidavits showing inclination to serve any project under the Central Government, may be absorbed by it. Services of those employees may be utilized by the Central Government in any of its project. They would, however, be continued to be paid salaries on the same scale of pay. Their experience may also be considered for the purpose of determination of their seniority, subject of course to any rule which is in operation in the field. All other financial benefits including those of superannuatory benefits should be protected. It is, however, clarified that such employment under the Central Government would be temporary and personal posts which would come to an end with the retirement of the concerned employees. Similarly those Respondents who have opted for their employment with the State of West Bengal or the State of Karnataka, as the case may be would be absorbed by the States of West Bengal and Karnataka, as the case may be, on the same terms and conditions as referred to hereinbefore. Keeping in view the nature of order passed by us, it is clarified that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. We also make it clear that these orders have been passed by us keeping the stand taken by the parties. These appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. It is in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court that the petitioner has raised his grievance before the State Government relying on the controversy which has been set at rest vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2022 passed in writ A No.718 of 2016 in the case of Sri Ram Shanker Dwivedi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others where after considering the entire conspectus of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the said as well as considering the counter affidavitfiled by the State of U.P. this Court had allowed the writ petition and directed the State of U.P. to count the past services rendered by the petitioner in the Central Government for the purpose of pension and other post retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is squarely covered by the said case. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel do not dispute the fact that when representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 7.3.2022 all the reports were taken into consideration by this Court the benefit of the judgment and order passed in Writ A No.718 of 2016 was not available to opposite party No.1 while deciding the said representation. It has been submitted that now the rights of the parties have been crystallized and the said judgment has to be taken into account by the stand of Government of Uttar Pradesh who may now be required to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as of this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2022 in Writ A No.718 of 2016.
5. In view of what has been stated herein-above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7.3.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Principal Secretary (Women and Child Development), U.P., Lucknow.
6. The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation to opposite party No.1 within two weeks from today annexing therewith copy of the judgment and order dated 28.4.2022 passed by this Court in Writ A No.718 of 2016 (Sri Ram Shanker Dwivedi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as copy of this order taking all the pleas as has been taken in instant writ petition, whereupon opposite party No.1 shall consider and decide the same, expeditiously, say within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordance with law in light of the observations of this Court. The decision so taken shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
