Daya Ram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Small ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7613 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2258 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Daya Ram Yadav And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Small Scale Industries And Export Promotion Deptt., Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Bahadur Singh,Prabhat Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there were appointed between 1978 and 1980 in the Ministerial Cadre at U.P. Export Corporation Limited now known as U.P. Handicraft Development Marketing Corporation Ltd. and were appointed on the post of Center Incharge in Carpet Division, Bhadohi.

3. The petitioners made an application under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in the year 2000, which was accepted on 08.11.2000, but despite acceptance of VRS, dues were not paid to the petitioners as recommended by the Vth Pay Commission and accordingly, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 896 (S/S) of 2001, stating that they had already withdrawn their VRS application and the Court by means of judgment and order dated 07.07.2017, allowed the writ petition and since reinstatement of petitioners was not possible, allowed the claim of the petitioners and the respondents were directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to each petitioner within one month from the date of order. The said order of High Court was subjected to challenge in Special Appeal No. 341 of 2017, which was also dismissed by means of order dated 05.09.2019. Despite the aforesaid, compliance was not made and hence the petitioners filed contempt petition.

4. It has been submitted that subsequently, after interference of this Court the respondents have paid compensation to the petitioners on 04.05.2022. Grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is with regard to payment of interest on delayed payment of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the matter up to some length, submits that grievance of the petitioners will be substantially redressed in case respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide their representation dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), expeditiously.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to above prayer.

7. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 - Managing Director, U.P. Handicraft Development and Marketing Corporation, Lucknow to consider and decide petitioners representation dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, by means of reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

A. Verma

(Alok Mathur, J.)