Allahabad High Court
Krishna Murari And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. ... on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11757 of 2019
Petitioner :- Krishna Murari And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was an employee of Panchayatiraj Vitt Vikas Nigam, a Corporation owned and controlled by the State of U.P. A decision was taken by the State Government to close Panchayatiraj Vitt Vikas Nigam and consequently the services of the petitioners were retrenched. The petitioners and the other similarly placed persons had agitated the issue before this Court for absorption by the State Government and hence their claim was decided by this Court by means of judgment dated 04.07.2016 passed in a bunch of writ petitions leading being Writ Petition No. 7134 (SS) of 2006. the learned Single Judge not finding merits in the claim of the petitioners dismissed writ petition.
3. The other petitioners other than the present petitioners preferred a special appeal before a division bench of this Court. The special appeal was allowed and judgment of learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2016 was set aside and the State Government was directed to consider the claim of the retrenched employees (petitioners therein) for absorption in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within stipulated period of time.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners did not assail the order of Single Judge but after the judgment of the division bench allowing the special appeal by its order dated 04.04.2017, the petitioner in turn made a representation to the State Government for giving him the benefit of the judgment of the special appeal and accordingly, absorbing their services in the State Government.
5. The State Government rejected the representation of the petitioners by means of impugned order dated 06.06.2018 which has been assailed in the present writ petition. By means of the impugned order, the State Government rejected the claim of the petitioners solely on the ground that the dispute raised by the petitioners attained finality on dismissing of the writ petition on 04.07.2016 and the petitioners had not assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge which became final and binding between the parties.
6. Though, other petitioners preferred a special appeal which was allowed and directions were issued for their absorption which has been duly complied with by the respondents. It is in this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of rejection as the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents attained finality on dismissal of the writ petition and the petitioners did not challenge the dispute in special appeal, the benefit of the judgment of the special appeal was denied by the respondents. In light of the said facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity with the impugned order.
7. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that considering the fact that the other similarly situated persons had approached the division bench, petitioners may also be given liberty to file a special appeal so that they can also seek the benefit of the judgment dated 04.04.2017 and their services can be absorbed in the State Government.
8. In light of the above, it shall always open for the petitioners to approach division bench by filing a special appeal.
9. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 2.11.2022/Ravi/
