Allahabad High Court
Laiqur Rahman vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19186 of 2022
Petitioner :- Laiqur Rahman
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3.
This petition has been filed with the following main relief:-
"(i). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents authorities to provide the benefits of the 6th and 7th revised pay recommendation to the petitioner from 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016, and thereafter arrears of pay revision with 6% interest as the bank rate."
It is the case of the petitioner that he retired as Pump Operator Grade-I from the office of the respondent no.3 on 30.06.2022. He has not been paid his dues as aforesaid. The petitioner has made a representation to the respondent no.3 in this regard.
There is an agreement between the parties that a coordinate Bench has decided the bunch of writ petitions in the light of the judgment rendered in Kamesh Srivastava in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3311 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court on 20.05.2022.
The relevant extract of the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam and Shri Ravindra Raizada, learned Senior Advocate/AAG appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer Karmik and Others, 2005(13) SCC 300 and on consideration of Regulation 31 of U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations 1978, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, at the same time looking to the financial difficulty projected by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG, we modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct that so far those employees who are working with U.P. Jal Nigam, the arrears for the period between 2006 and 2010 shall be deferred and same shall be credited in their GPF Account so that at the time of retirement, the same may be available and paid to them and at the same time the U.P. Jal Nigam is not burdened with such a huge financial liability immediately. It is also further observed and directed that so far those persons who are already retired on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall be paid the actual arrears for which three months time is granted to U.P. Jal Nigam to pay the arrears. It is further directed that if the amount as above, to be deposited in the GPF Account, is deposited within a period of six months from today, arrears shall not carry any interest, otherwise it shall carry the interest @ 6 % per annum. Similarly, with respect to those employees who have already retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the meantime, if they are paid arrears within a period of four months from today, in that case it shall not carry any interest, failing which it shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum.
It also goes without saying that the aforesaid directions shall be applicable with respect to those employees who are not paid any difference pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the High Court as it is reported that during the pendency of the present Special Leave Petitions, some of the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam are already paid the arrears pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
With this, the present Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
In view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court such employees whose case may be covered by the orders and whose cases cannot be distinguished have to be conferred the benefits as given by this Court and by the Supreme Court as in the case of Kamesh Srivastava (Supra).
The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Department to seek clarification from the Supreme Court by filing application with regard to those employees who were initially not employed in Local Self Government Department.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Vivek Kr.
