Mohd. Khalid And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7182 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13494 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohd. Khalid And Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted permission to implead the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow as one of the respondents.

Necessary incorporation be carried out during the course of the day.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking parity to the same pay-scale as drawn by the Stenographers of the Head of Department (Forest Department). For the said purpose, the petitioners preferred a representation dated 19.03.2008 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2009 in light of the judgment dated 11.03.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13072 of 2008 (Mohd. Khalid and others Vs. State and others. The order dated 25.09.2009 has been put under challenge through the instant petition.

While assailing the abovementioned order, it is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that for the Stenographers working in the Forest Department, consideration of the recommendations of Bajaj Samiti under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary in light of the recommendations as per the Letter dated 24.04.2003, the assessment of pay-scale has been assessed as per the different level of pay-scale and recommendation has been made and a request letter has also been sent the State Government on 18.07.2008 but till now, no decision has been taken in the matter by the State Government.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made but did not dispute the facts which have already been asserted in the counter affidavit in reply to the contentions as raised in the petition.

Considering the factual position as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, if the recommendation is still pending before him to be considered as mentioned in the said paragraph of the counter affidavit, the respondent no.5 is hereby directed to expedite disposal of the pending recommendation sent through Letter dated 24.04.2003 which has been sent on 18.07.2008.

The entire exercise shall be carried out and culminated into finality as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.

The prayer as made in the petition for quashing the order dated 25.09.2009 shall be of no use if the recommendation will be accepted or rejected by the competent authority i.e. respondent no.5. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his grievances with regard to dismissal of the representation, if the same are still not redressed by the competent authority, since the same shall be dependent upon the outcome of the recommendation.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 13.3.2023

Vivek Kr.