Allahabad High Court
Ram Pratap Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10144
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 689 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjiv Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Avinash Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.
2. When the matter was listed on 01.02.2024 and the case was called, a request was made on behalf of Shri Sanjiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner that due to some unavoidable circumstances, he has to go somewhere today so the matter may be taken up tomorrow i.e. 02.02.2024. When the case has been taken up today, i.e. 02.02.2024, Shri Avinash Srivastava, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama after obtaining no objection certificate from the previous counsel. When certain queries were asked by the Court regarding locus of the petitioner and maintainability of the present writ petiton, Shri Avinash Srivastava has requested for the adjournment of the case. Despite repeated requests of this Court, he did not give reply and refused to argue the matter/reply to the queries of the Court and then the Court itself proceeded to look into the records of the case and heard learned the learned State Counsel.
3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 and for quashing of the impugned orders/replies dated 11.05.2023, 25.05.2023, 06.06.2023 passed by opposite party no. 3 and for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 passed by respondent no.2.
4. It is further prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to act within the light of the order dated 24.07.213 passed by the High Court and also in the light of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.03.2023.
5. Learned State Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the orders which are under challenge in the present writ petition dated 29.05.2023, 11.05.2023, 25.05.2023, 06.06.2023 and 23.01.2018 are not the orders passed against the petitioner. These orders passed were passed against one Shri Chedi Lal, who is not the petitioner in the present the writ petition. The impugned order dated 23.01.2018 was passed rejecting the representation of one Shri Ram Gopal Singh and others.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is out of job since the year 2002 after the scheme had come to an end and it is for the first time after the lapse of 22 years, the petitioner has approached this Court.
7. After hearing learned State Counsel and going through the record of the case, it is found that the orders which are under challenge in the present writ petition are not passed against the petitioner and the persons against whom the orders were passed, they are not party in the present writ petition. The prayer that orders may be passed in the light of the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the High Court is quoted herein below:-
" Though learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to disclose the present status of the petitioners in service but considering the pleadings of the case, I hereby dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the State Government that if the petitioners are still working on honorarium basis, they shall be paid wages as per prescribed rate of State Government and if they have improved their status in service, they shall be entitled to get wages accordingly."
8. The above writ petition was filed by Akhil Bharti Jan Swasthya Rakshak Kalyan Samiti versus State of U.P and others wherein this Court has observed that though learned counsel for petitioners was not in a position to disclose the present status of the petitioners of that writ petition in service but considering the pleading of the case, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the state Government that if the petitioners are still working on honorarium basis, they shall be paid wages. The petitioner has nowhere mentioned in the present writ petition that he was a member of Akhil Bharti Jan Swathya Rakshak Kalyan Samiti and he has also not indicated that he was working in the year 2013 when this order was passed by this Court. It is admitted in writ petition that he was not working after 2002.
9. The further prayer that the respondents may be directed to decide and act in the light of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 33655 of 2022 arising out ouf of impugned final judgment and order dated 23.11.2017 in SSNO No. 4562 of 2014, which is quoted below:-
" Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the petition papers.
Delay condoned.
Though learned senior counsel seeks to point out that the decision on the representation submitted by them has not been taken despite the earlier orders passed by the High Court, at this stage, we do not find it appropriate to retain this petition. The appropriate course would be to enable the petitioners to file an application under RTI ACT to know the fate of their representation and if the request made in the representation is decided against them, the petitioners would have the liberty of assailing such order. Through the said information if it is found that the representation has not been disposed of also the petitioners are reserved the liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate. relief in the matter.
With such liberty, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of."
10. From the perusal of the judgment, it reveals that the said S.L.P was preferred against the judgment dated 23.11.2017. The petitioner has not disclosed about any details of the writ petition no. 4562 of 2014 in which judgment/order dated 23.11.2017 was passed. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioners of S.L.P to file an application under R.T.I to know the fate of the their representation and if the representation is decided against them, the petitioner would have liberty of assailing such order.
11. The petitioner has not mentioned even a single word that he was a party in the writ petition no. 4562 of 2014, the judgment against which the S.L.P was prefered and whether he was party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court case or not, where the liberty was given only to the petitioners to file the application. The petitioner has also not disclosed whether he has filed R.T.I. application or not. It is also admitted case in paragraph- 20 to 23 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not working since the year 2002 and after 22 years, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition without explaining latches.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024
DiVYa
