Rajesh Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rajya ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14888 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7059 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Bux Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Phool Bux 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 petitioners were appointed on the Class-3 post in U.P. State of Rajya Sampati Department, Lucknow. The petitioners' services were also regularised and with regard to grievance regarding payment of the salary under the provisons of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission they had approached this court by means of Writ Petition No. 6154 (SS) of 2013 which was disposed of by the order dated 21.02.2018 and certain directions were passed where this Court had found that petitioners were eligible for being paid salary equivalent to the minimum pay-scale as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission in the judgments.

3. The respondents did not comply with the said order which necessitating the petitioners for filing a contempt petition being contempt Petition No. 2019 of 2018 and it is only after filing of the contempt petition and this Court taken cognizance of non-compliance of the judgment that the respondents have complied with the judgment and paid the petitioner an amount of Rs. 4,95,090/- on 10.10.2018.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite clear directions of this Court as well as the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the respondents have made errors in computing the amount payable to the petitioners for that purpose they had made representations to the respondents but the same has not been decided.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners after arguing the matter at some length submits that grievance of the petitioners shall be substantially redress in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation already moved by the petitioner expeditiously.

6. Learned Chief Standing counsel does not dispute or object to the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.

7. Accordingly, without entering into merit of the case, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25.07.2022 as contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition with reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 21.10.2022

Ravi/