Smt.Anuradha Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12694 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10194 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt.Anuradha Yadav And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav,Gagan Mehta
 

 
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

This Court vide order dated 10.12.2022 while considerig the grant of interim relief had observed that the impugned directions were made pursuant to the judgment rendered by the learned Judge on 29.04.2020 in Writ-A No. 190 of 2020 (Smt. Neelam Chauhan vs. State of U.P.). The said judgment was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 240 of 2020 (Kiran Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. through Secretary), in which an order of status quo has been passed. Thereafter, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Neelam Chauhan (supra) was considered in other Special Appeals, in which Division Bench proceeded to stay the operation of judgment so rendered. The Special Appeal was decided finally on 26.02.2021. The decision in the Special Appeals were challenged before the apex Court in SLP No. 3105 of 2022 (Rajnish Kumar & another vs. State of U.P. and Others etc.) wherein the Apex Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondents and at the same time passed an order staying the operation of the impugned orders as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In so far as the petitioners therein were concerned, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to join the duties forthwith and to pay the current salary. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.10.2022 a statement on behalf of the petitioners was made that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have been released their payments and they also approached the Apex Court. However, the salary to the petitioner no. 1 was not released.

Mr. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a similar SLP being SLP No. 7157-7160 of 2021 (Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P. and Others), the Apex Court had required to submit the status report in respect of payments being made to the petitioners with regard to the current salary including increments and arrears.

Based on the above Mr. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner no. 1 is also entitled for the payment of current salary.

In view of the submission advanced by Mr. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the fact that the Apex Court has granted indulgence to the persons equal circumstanced like the petitioner no. 1. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner no. 1 is also entitled for payment of current salary as and when the same falls due month to month. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay current salary to the petitioner no. 1 month to month as and when the same false due.

List this case after four weeks.

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

Ruhi