Allahabad High Court
Hridya Nand Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3385 of 2016
Petitioner :- Hridya Nand Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Govt. Of Up Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Bose,Abhishek Bose
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sandeep Sharma, Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
"(i) issue or pass a writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents hereto to treat the petitioner to have been regularized with effect from 10.02.2000 with all consequential benefits of increments, seniority etc., with effect from the said date, and
(ii) issue or pas a writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents hereto to pay to the petitioner the arrears of regular salary and allowances as and when the same fell due with effect from 10.02.2000 together with the post-retirement benefits including pension and gratuity on the basis that the petitioner had been in regular service of the respondents hereto with effect from 10.02.2000 including the arrears thereto from the said date, and...",
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a holder of Industrial Training Institute certificate in the trade of tracer/draftsman and was appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Tracer on 1.1.1979. He submits that despite having rendered a long service the opposite parties did not consider the petitioner for regularization and accordingly with regard to his aforesaid grievance the petitioner approached this Court by means of writ A No.26447 of 2013 which was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 directing Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Ballia Circle, Ballia to consider and redress the grievance of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the said direction the services of the petitioner were never regularized nor did the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Ballia Circle, Ballia consider his representation in pursuance of the said judgment of this Court and the matter is still pending consideration. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has yet again approached this Court with the same relief i.e. for regularization with effect from 2000.
4. Learned Standing counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this second writ petition considering the fact that on previous occasion for the same relief the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by means of order dated 10.5.2013.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said facts but submits that despite clear direction of this Court the opposite parties have not decided the representation.
6. Considering the fact that this petition is pending or last six years, with the consent of the parties and without entering into merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before opposite party No.4-Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Ballia Circle, Ballia within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. In case, such a representation is given, the opposite party shall consider and decide the same within next two weeks in view of the observations and directions made above and communicate the same to the petitioner as well.
Order Date :- 25.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
