Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6983 of 2022
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Rural Water Supply And Minor Irrigation Dept.And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, 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 initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer through U. P. Public Service Commission and while working on the post of Executive Engineer has retired after attaining the age of superannuation.
3. The petitioner had assailed the order dated 10.04.2015 by which the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of pay Band -4 of Rs. 37400-67700/- with grade pay of Rs. 8700/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been rejected.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that similarly situated persons have approached this Court by filing a bunch of writ petitions, the leading being Writ A No. 2000222 of 2015 (Kuldeep Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) which was allowed by this Court and the order dated 10.04.2015 which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition was quashed.
5. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute this fact that this Court in the said writ petitions has already quashed the order dated 10.04.2015 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (Supra) and consequently the claim of the petitioner can be adequately considered by the respondents, in the light of judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (Supra). However, the impugned orders dated 24.10.2019 and 26.02.2020 are also illegal and arbitrary in as much as they upheld the order dated 10.4.2015 which had already been quashed by this Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (Supra).
6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's grievances shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in light of the judgment of this Court dated 19.07.2022 passed in Writ A No. 2000222 of 2015 expeditiously.
7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, does not oppose in case such a direction is issued to respondent to decide the representation of the petitioners in a time bound manner.
8. In light of the above, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to respondent No. 1/Principal Secretary, Namami Gange Rural Water Supply and Minor Irrigation Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow within two weeks from today and in case such a representation is made, respondent No. 1 shall proceed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law with speaking and reasoned order as well as in light of the judgment of this Court dated 19.07.2022 passed in Writ A No. 2000222 of 2015, expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
Ravi/
