Allahabad High Court
Laxmi Kant And 56 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8797 of 2018
Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant And 56 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Srivastava,Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the benefit of Old Pension scheme as provided in Uttar Pradesh Police (Asadharan Pension) Niyamawali, 1961 in place of new pension scheme to the petitioners."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to old pension scheme as provided in Uttar Pradesh Police (Asadharan Pension) Niyamawali,1961 as the advertisement in the present case was issued in the year 2001 and petitioners were sent for training in the year 2004-05. It is further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for directing the authorities to grant old pension.
On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioners at first instance have approached the employer for redressal of their grievance, he fairly submits that petitioners have not approached the employer at first instance on account of the judgments passed by this Court in Writ-A No.55606 of 2008 (Mahesh Narayan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 19.12.2019 and Writ-A No.43862 of 2016 (Dr. Meghraj Singh and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 21.1.2020, which are filed along with the supplementary affidavit. However, he submits that petitioners may be granted liberty to approach the employer for redressal of their grievance and to serve a copy of the judgments of this Court passed in similar matter.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that in case petitioners approach the employer for redressal of their grievance, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, in a time bound manner.
It is to be seen that in a writ of mandamus, it is the duty of the petitioners to first approach the employer for redressal of their grievance and the employer is bound to redress the grievance of its employees at the earliest.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of learned counsel for the parties, petitioners are granted liberty to approach the respondent No.3-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment, Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarters, Allahabad for redressal of their grievance by filing a representation. In case any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No.3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a representation along with a certified copy of this order. Petitioners are also at liberty to file judgments, which are relied upon by them and the same shall also be taken note of by respondent No.3 while passing the order on the representation of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.11.2022
D. Tamang
