Shivaji Tripathi vs The Chairman U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 19716 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shivaji Tripathi vs The Chairman U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ... on 29 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40878
 
Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4128 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Shivaji Tripathi
 
Respondent :- The Chairman U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Lko And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narsingh Narain Lal,Ambika Prasad Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.01.24 passed by the opposite party nol as contained in Annexure-1,

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party not to grant increment due to the petitioner with effect from 01.07.20 with all consequential benefits along with interest.

iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction which may be deemed just and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

iv. Allow the writ petition with cost."

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment of the case of P.P. Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2021(1)ADJ 646, with respect to grant of one annual increment to which, he had become admissible on 1st of July,2019.

On the other hand, Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the ratio of the Judgment of P.P. Pandey(Supra), would not be available to the present matter, as the rules are all together different than the rules of the department in the case of P.P. Pandey(Supra). He added that the Hon'ble Apex Court, while passing the Judgment and order, has taken care of the fact that P.P. Pandey had been retired prior to date of his superannuation.

Be that as it may, the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation while raising his claim for grant of one annual increment before the competent authority within 15 days from today, and if such representation is moved, the competent authority is hereby directed to consider and decide the same within further period of six weeks, in the light of Judgment of P.P. Pandey(Supra), if it is applicable, while ignoring the order dated 16-01-2024.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 29.5.2024

AKS