Allahabad High Court
Sundar Lal Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ ... on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8651 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sundar Lal Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue, Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed praying inter alia the following relief:-
"(I) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to consider to pay the second promotional pay scale Rs.8000-13500/-, as per the government order dated 24.7.2018, contained as ANNEXURE No.8 of this writ petition, on completion of 24 years of services and 3rd ACP as per vith Pay commission, on completion of 26 years services, with grade pay of Rs.6600/- and re-fix/paid all retiral dues accordingly."
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents has raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. He has contended that the Petitioners retired from service on 29.2.2012. The writ petition has been filed about 10 years after his superannuation and is highly belated and liable to be dismissed on this very short ground.
4. Learned counsel for Petitioner has contended that earlier the entitlement of Collection Amins for 2nd Promotional Pay scale and 3rd ACP was disputed and such dispute was resolved only after judgment and order rendered by the Apex Court on 10.04.2015. It is contended that even thereafter, the entire benefits were not granted to Collection Amins leading to another round of litigation. It is contended that the matter has been settled recently by means of Government orders dated 24.7.2018 and 29.10.2018. In the circumstances, it is contended, there is no delay in filing the petition. Even otherwise, it is contended that discrepancy in pensionary benefits is a recurring cause of action.
5. Shri Pramendra Kumar Singh, contends that for the redressal of his grievance, the Petitioner has preferred a representation dated 01.09.2022 to the Uppar Mukhya Sachiv, Department of Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, which it is alleged, is still undisposed. A copy of the said representation has been brought on record as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The counsel confines his prayer for a direction to Principal Secretary to decide the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated time frame.
6. Looking into the nature of controversy involved, without entering into the merits of the case, the Petitioner is granted liberty to serve a copy of the representation dated 01.09.2022 mentioned above, along with a copy of this order upon the Uppar Mukhya Sachiv, Department of Revenue. In case such a representation is made, the authority concerned is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation.
7. All questions, including the question of limitation, are left open to be decided by the authority concerned.
8.With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
Sachin
