Allahabad High Court
Keshav Prasad Ojha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 3 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34559
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3458 of 2024
Petitioner :- Keshav Prasad Ojha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
Instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to provide LT Grade Pay Scale with effect from 19.02.1991 to 19.02.1992 as per government order dated 24.05.2004 and 23.06.2005 expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and also to revise the pension of the petitioner accordingly expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in any nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the Writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
After arguing at some length, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 3 and the opposite party no. 3 may be directed to consider and decide the same within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the petitioner has approached this court at a belated stage and thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable on this ground alone.
This court has gone into the facts of this case and it borne out that an annual increment of the year 1991 is sought by way of preferring this writ petition, as the valuable legal right of the petitioner, is being affected because of the fault on the part of the department itself, and the petitioner is suffering so far as his pension and other post retiral dues are being paid lesser and thus, there seems to be some substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This court is also not unmindful to the Judgment and Order rendered in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 648, wherein it has been held that if there is continuous wrong committed by the authority, then despite the delay, the matter can be entertained.
In view of the above and without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 3 within a period of two weeks from today and if such representation is moved, the opposite party no. 3 is hereby directed to consider and decide the same within further period of eight weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
AKS
