Allahabad High Court
Ramdeen Verma @ Ram Deen And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 29 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40904
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4282 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramdeen Verma @ Ram Deen And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar,Km. Vishwa Mohini,Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jaibind Singh Rathour
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms Arundhati Mishra, advocate, holding brief of Sri Jaibind Singh Rathour, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ram Kumar Mishra, learned additional chief standing counsel for the State.
2. Notice to opposite party no. 3 is hereby dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed with following reliefs:-
"i) That a issuing writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, O.P.No.2 may be commanded to release funds for payment of arrears of salary of the petitioners from 01.06.2003 till the date of their retirement as per the recommendations of the Vth, VIth & VIIth Pay Commission as claimed in the representations dated 10.04.2024 & 26.04.2024 contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition.
ii) That by issuing writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, the arrears of salary may kindly be directed to be paid with interest at market rate from the date it became due till the date of actual payment.
(iii) To issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioners.
(iv) To award the cost, of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners against the Opp. Parties"
4. After argument at length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 to take decision with respect to payment of arrears of salary with effect from 01.06.2023 till the date of their retirement, as per recommendations of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission, within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.
5. On the other hand, Ms Arundhati Mishra, advocate, holding brief ofSri Jaibind Singh Rathour, counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the State cadre authority is only one of the member to operate the managerial cadre and therefore, the decision is to be taken by the District Administrative Cadre, U.P. Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Societies.
6. In rejoinder, the counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that so far as the judgment and order dated 11.03.2024 is concerned, the same indicates that the state cadre authority is the competent authority to take decision so far as the payment of arrears of salary is concerned.
7. In view of the aforesaid innocuous prayer and without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to move fresh representations separately before opposite party no. 2, within period of fifteen days and if, such representations are moved, the opposite party no. 2 is hereby directed to consider and decide the same, within further period of eight weeks, from the date, certified copy of this order produced before him.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby disposed of at admission stage.
Order Date :- 29.5.2024
Mayank
