Bramhjeet Tiwari And 23 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4002 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5083 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Bramhjeet Tiwari And 23 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dairy Development And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Shanker Lal
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

The question of entitlement of employees of PCDF to one additional increment on completion of 19 years of regular and satisfactory service and second promotional pay-scale on complete of 24 years of similar service has already been considered by the Court in a bunch of writ petition leading case being Writ Petition No. 6997 (SS) of 2015. The said petitions were decided by a detailed judgment on 09.12.20215. The provisions contained in Regulation 33 of Regulations of 2010 and other relevant provisions were duly considered therein. The claim of the employees was allowed in terms of the judgment dated 12.12.2013 passed in Writ Petition No 7486 (SS) of 2013. Review Petition No. 527 (D) of 2015 was dismissed as there was no valid ground found for reviewing the judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 6263 (SS) of 2015. Against these judgment special appeals were filed leading case being Special Appeal No. 159 of 2016 which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 12.09.2019. Even prior to the aforesaid, writ petitions were allowed and special appeals were dismissed as also Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. Thereafter another Writ Petition No. 922 (SS) of 2021 was decided on 13.01.2021 and the said judgment was corrected on 18.06.2021 and 03.09.2021. Financial condition of PCDF was also taken into consideration by the Court while allowing the said writ petition. Against the said judgment, no appeal was filed. Thereafter, certain other writ petitions were filed against which special appeals were filed all of which have been dismissed, therefore, as far as the entitlement of the employees of PCDF including petitioners to the aforesaid benefits, nothing remains to be adjudicated. The pleas raised in defense in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit are similar to those raised in the earlier round of litigation which have already been rejected.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the above mentioned judgments. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of observations/directions contained therein.

The opposite parties are directed to comply the judgment and provide requisite benefit to the petitioners from the relevant date after considering the matter in the light of the aforesaid within three months.

The petition is allowed.

[Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

Santosh/-