Mahesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25576 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182149
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14036 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Tiwari,Mamta Tiwari,Rajesh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Santosh Kumar, learning Standing Counsel for the Respondents-1, 2 and 4.

In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the third respondent.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was a Diploma Holder in English Typing and he possesses Diploma Certificate issued by the Principal, Agrasen Typewriting School, Mirzapur.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he was engaged as Workshop/ Lab Attendant in the Institution namely Government Polytechnic, Orai through a service provider, third respondent. The writ petitioner claims to have been engaged since 01.01.2019 and he is registered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Corporation Act. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he is not being paid miminum pay-scale on the post of Workshop/ Lab Assistant. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies upon the decision in Writ-A No.25213 of 2019, Prem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. decided on 28.04.2023.

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to accord minimum pay-scale to the petitioner on the post of Workshop/ Lab Attendant.

Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled for minimum pay-scale despite the fact that he has been appointed through service provider needs determination at the level of the second respondent, Director, Technical Education, Directorate, U.P. Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the second respondent and he does not propose to file any response to the writ petitioner.

To such a submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.

Considering the submission of the rival parties, as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response to the writ petition granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation accompanied with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, who shall, on the receipt of the same, proceed to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the following fundamental and core issues: (a) The entitlement of the writ petitioner for minimum pay-scale on the basis of being engaged through service provider; (b) the applicability of the judgment in Writ-A No.25213 of 2019, Prem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. decided on 28.04.2023; (c) any other ancillary or incidental issues.

Needless to point out that this writ petition has been decided without seeking any response, thus passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits. In case second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be addressed by any other authority, the papers shall be transmitted to it with due intimation to the writ petitioner so as to facilitate early disposal of the claim of the writ petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed off.

Order Date :- 20.9.2023

N.S.Rathour