Allahabad High Court
Lalji Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2249 of 2023
Petitioner :- Lalji Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Khel And Yuva Kalyan Deptt., Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Tripathi,Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties concerned to pay the service dues of the petitioner from 2004 to 2014 and further direct to pay the entire consequential benefits and arrears along with the benefits of 7th pay commission with interest.
(ii) issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to decide the pending representation within stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court. Annexed as Annexure No.6 to this petition.
(iii)...
(iv)..."
2. As per the case set out in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially engaged as Driver on daily wage basis on 30.11.1989. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.7287(SS) of 2004 for regularizing his services in accordance with extant regularizing rules. This Court vide order dated 31.07.2009 disposed of Writ Petition No.7287(SS) of 2004 with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Posts (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998. However, post of Driver is not a Group C post in the State Government, it is a Group D post, therefore, this direction for regularizing the services of the petitioner in accordance with U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' Posts (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 would have no application in the case of the petitioner.
3. It appears that despite this order dated 31.07.2009, petitioner's services were not regularized, therefore, he filed second petition being Writ Petition No.3337(SS) of 2010 and the said second petition was disposed of by his court vide order dated 08.07.2014 with a direction to the State authorities to pay minimum of pay scale to the petitioner as admissible to the post of Driver.
4. The order dated 08.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.3337(SS) of 2010 was challenged by the State by filing Special Appeal Defective No.748 of 2014 and very eminent Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Special Appeal vide judgment and order dated 15.11.2017 holding that there was no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge giving direction for payment of minimum of pay scale to the petitioner for the post of Driver.
5. The judgment and order dated 15.11.2017 passed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22185 of 2018. However, the Supreme Court vide order dated 2.11.2018 dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) in limine.
6. The petitioner thereafter filed a Contempt petition No.368 of 2018 alleging non compliance of the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 08.07.2014 and order of learned Division Bench dated 15.11.2017. Notices were issued in the contempt petition. After receipt of notice, order dated 02.1.2020 was passed whereby the petitioner was paid minimum of pay scale.
7. Now, this is third writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner claiming identical reliefs which were prayed by him in earlier two writ petitions.
8. Sri Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the State authorities have not complied with the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in its entirety and, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable.
9. On the other hand, Ms. Deepsikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that this contention of the petitioner that the order dated 08.7.2014 passed by learned Single Judge was not complied entirely is not correct and no such objection was raised by the petitioner during the hearing of the contempt petition. The petitioner did not raise any objection that the order dated 02.01.2020, which has not been placed on record in the present petition, was not in compliance of the order dated 08.07.2014, which was confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.11.2017. She, therefore, submits that this successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable, and is liable to the dismissed.
10. I find substance in the submission of Ms. Deepshikha, learned A.C.S.C. appearing for the State. Same prayers, which were made in the earlier writ petitions, have been made in the present writ petition. In the contempt petition, no objection was taken by the petitioner that the State authorities have not complied with the order dated 08.07.2014 and 15.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge and learned Division Bench in the writ petition and the Special Appeal respectively.
11. In view thereof, present writ petition being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 15.3.2023/prateek
