Dipendra Raj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6246 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dipendra Raj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 19 March, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16003-DB
 
Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 22 of 2025
 
Appellant :- Dipendra Raj
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Janendra Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- V. P. Nag (S.C.) Dilip Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri V. P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat.

2. The appellant writ petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.12690 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by means of this intra court appeal.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed as Panchayat Assistant for a period upto 30th of November, 2022. He also submitted that despite the service of the appellant having come to an end yet he continued to work with the Gram Panchayat and during his extended tenure  he was also required to perform election duty but he has not been paid any honorarium post November 2022.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that despite the fact that the service of the appellant was not extended explicitly by entering into a fresh contract but nevertheless the appellant continued to work and his presence in the work office of the Panchayat was recorded in shape of his online attendance record and his work record is also available with the respondents indicating that he continued to work. During this period the appellant was also required to undertake an election duty and this aspect has been ignored while dismissing the writ petition. Thus, the appellant cannot be deprived of his remuneration/honorarium for his services taken by the State Government. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 deserves to be set aside and the writ petition of the appellant be allowed.

5. Shri V. P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for the State has pointed out that the appellant was a contractual employee whose contract came to an end on 30th of November, 2022. It is further urged that post 30th of November, 2022, no fresh agreement was executed nor fresh employment/renewal was made in favour of the appellant, hence in the aforesaid circumstances, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted as admittedly the appellant was a contractual employee whose contract has come to an end on 30th of November, 2022 and in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed as the reliefs claimed by the appellant could not be granted. Hence the intra court appeal be dismissed.

6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.02.2025 had passed the following order which reads as under:-

"1. Instructions placed before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record all the relevant documents which according to him are indicative of the appellant's continuance beyond the period of contract.

3. Though the attendance sheet placed on record has not been disputed by the respondents, however, the instructions reveal that the same has been stated to be by way of a mistake on the part of Gram Pradhan and Panchayat Secretary. Before the Court may proceed on the basis of instructions, it is left open to the State to place on record the relevant documents according to which continuance of the appellant beyond the period of contract is disputed.

4. List/put up this matter on 25.02.2025 in the list of fresh cases."

8. On 28.02.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had also passed an order which reads as under:-

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant as well as counter affidavit filed by the State today are taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State.

3. We leave it open to the respondents to make payment of honorarium to the appellant for the period he has marked undisputed attendance.

4. List this case on 19th March, 2025 in the list of fresh cases."

9. Having taken note of the order and material on record, apparently, the facts in between the parties are not disputed; inasmuch as the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Assistant and his contractual appointment came to an end on 30th of November, 2022. It is also not disputed that any renewal or fresh contract was entered by the appellant with the respondents. However, the controversy remains as to the impact of the fact that despite the term of contractual appointment having come to end and in absence of any renewal/fresh contract coupled with the fact that the appellant continued to work as stated by him and in order to substantiate the same he has brought on record his online attendance sheet as well as document to indicate that his services were taken during the election. Whether in such circumstances, the remuneration/honorarium could be denied by the State Authorities.

10. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel was put with a specific query regarding the authenticity of the online attendance documents as well as the document indicating that the appellant had rendered election duty, to which it has been answered that the documents filed by the appellant indicates that he had given his online attendance but it is also urged that the appellant did not enter into the office rather he remained nearby the office premises to give his GPS location  as that of Panchayat Office and entered the online attendance portal. Learned Standing Counsel, however, did not dispute the fact that the appellant had also rendered election duty.

11. As evident from the aforesaid facts that unless and until the appellant was on the rolls of respondent no.6, he could not have been directed to undergo election duty. In absence of any fresh renewal or fresh contractual appointment, the appellant continued to be present in the office of the respondent no.6 as evident from the online attendance record. The explanation that the appellant was not in the office post November 2022 but he continued to mark his attendance by being nearby the office as stated by the learned Standing Counsel does not sound convincing as in order to do so the appellant had to have access to the system belonging to the Panchayat installed at their office. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was not working. It is always open for the employer to take or not to take work from the employee but it cannot be said that if the employer does not take work, the employee will not be entitled for his salary/remuneration/honorarium.

12. The material on record clearly reflects that the appellant was present as per his online attendance and this fact has not been disputed by the State Authorities. Even his participation in the election duty is not disputed, accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the State is not justified in refusing to pay the honorarium to the appellant for the period, he worked post 30th of November, 2022.

13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court directs that the State-respondents shall verify the number of days, the appellant worked including the remuneration payable to him for his election duty and thereafter make the payment of the same to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. In case if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the said remuneration became due till the date of his actual payment.

14. In so far as the claim of the appellant seeking renewal or fresh appointment is concerned, the same is not tenable and is accordingly turned down.

15. In light of the above discussions, the judgment and order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.12690 of 2024 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extend. The special appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 19.3.2025

ank

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)