Allahabad High Court
Arjun Lal vs State Of U.P.Through Principal ... on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6431 of 2010
Petitioner :- Arjun Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Principal Secy.Medical Dept.Lucknow
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Smt.Shikha Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Sharma, learned ACSC for the respondent - State.
2. After making submission at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after bifurcation of the State, State of Uttarakhand was constituted as a separate State and similar employees filed Writ Petition No.558 (S/B) of 2015 with Review Application No.994 of 2019, whereby following order was passed on 07.11.2019:
"14. We had, in our earlier order dated 01.07.2019, after referring to this contention urged on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, granted the respondents an opportunity to place a copy of the scheme before us. Despite an opportunity having been afforded, the said scheme was not placed on record. There are no statutory Rules which categorize the post of OTA in Group 'D'. The Government Order dated 27.02.1982 leaves it open to the Government to re-classify employees in Group 'C' and Group 'D'. In the absence of any express stipulation in the statutory Rules to the contrary, the conditions stipulated in the requisition dated 02.01.1987, in terms of which the review applicant-writ petitioner was appointed on 19.01.1987, would prevail. As the review applicant-writ petitioner joined the post of OTA, on being informed that the said post is in Group 'C' category, it is not open to the respondents to resile therefore and later contend that the said post is in Group 'D' category. As the post of OTA must be held to fall in Group 'C' category, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in denying the review applicant herein the relief sought for in the Claim Petition. Since we had also failed to notice Paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 27.02.1982, the order under review is set-aside, and the review application is ordered.
15. While the review applicant would, undoubtedly, be entitled to be treated as an employee in Group 'C', in the light of the observations made hereinabove, the fact remains that he has been indolent and lethargic and has belatedly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. While the Tribunal had rejected the claim of the review applicant-petitioner by order dated 13.10.2009, he slept over his rights and has questioned the order of the Tribunal more than six years thereafter on 21.12.2015. We see no reason, therefore, to grant the review applicant-petitioner relief from a date anterior to the date on which he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on 21.12.2015. The review-applicant-writ petitioner shall be treated as a Group 'C' employee, and shall be extended the pay-scale applicable to the post in Group 'C' category from 21.12.2015, when he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The monetary benefits, to which he is entitled to, shall be computed in terms of this order and shall be paid to him within four month from the date of production of a copy of this order."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner on the pending representation dated 19.08.2021 and to decide the same in a time bound manner to the effect that similar benefit be provided to him also, ends of justice would be met.
4. In view of reasons recorded in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of pending representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2021, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2021 in the light of observation made in the above referred judgment within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 25.7.2022
Adarsh K Singh
