Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Avarar Khan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181192
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17260 of 2018
Mohd. Avarar Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Om Prakash Ojha, Rabindra Nath Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri S.K. Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. A joint statement has been made by the counsel for the rival parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially engaged as a Class IV employee in the year 2002 in the respondent-organization. Though, according to the writ petitioner, there happened to be the Government Order issued from time to time for granting of minimum of the pay scale but the same was not assigned to the writ petitioner, thus, the writ petitioner preferred representations claiming the minimum pay scale. However, the claim of the writ petitioner came to be rejected by the District Sports Officer, Mainpuri on 14.06.2018.
4. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. This Court entertained the writ petition while seeking response from the respondents pursuant whereto a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, to which, rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the third respondent- District Sport Officer, Mainpuri cannot be sustained for a single moment, particularly, when the same lacks any reasons and details in coming to the same sans details. He submits that only by way of a cryptic order, the claim of the writ petitioner has been non-suited. The submission is that the writ petitioner had been working not only on daily wage basis but also on contractual basis through a contractor but following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2023 LawSuit (All) 631 had opined that in view of the mandate contained in para 60 of the judgment of Jagjit Singh (supra), the minimum of the pay scale is to be assigned to the contractual employees who have been engaged through a contractor. He then submits that the order impugned be set aside and the writ petition be allowed in toto.
6. Countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri S.K. Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondents has submitted that whatever might be once the writ petitioner was engaged for the maximum period by the contractor then he is not entitled to be bestowed with the benefits of minimum of the pay scale. He, however, submits that the writ petitioner might be right in contending that the order impugned is totally non-speaking, according to him, the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order. To such a submission, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.
8. Apparently, the claim of the writ petitioner is that he is working as a Class IV employee as daily wages since 2002. There is a certificate of the District Sports Officer, Mainpuri, Annexure Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 starting from page 16 onwards, reference whereof, has been made in para 3 of the writ petition regarding the engagement of the writ petitioner as daily wager since, 2002. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, the said averment has been denied while stating that the writ petitioner from the year 2002-03 up to June, 2017 for few period was engaged as daily wager and the maximum period as under contract labour and the contractor engaged him. The order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the third respondent- District Sports Officer, Mainpuri, pursuant to a direction of this Court in Writ-A No. 8416 of 2018 (Mohd. Avarar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others), the respondent has passed the order impugned which reads as under:
"????????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? 8416/2018 ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? 22-3-18 ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??, ?? ???? ??? ????????, ??????? ??? ???? 2002-03 ?? ??? 2017 ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??, ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????????, ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??, ?? ????????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ???"
9. A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the same is non-speaking, unreasoned and cryptic as the author of the order even did not care to mention the dates when the writ petitioner was engaged as daily wager and when he was engaged by the contractor. At least, this much is required of the author of the order to do once a mandamus has been issued to decide the representation. Certainly, there might be ground available to the employer/ the author of the order to either reject or to allow the claim and while rejecting, there should be reasons in coming to the conclusions backed by details which are necessarily a requirement. Since, the said exercise is virtually lacking and in a casual manner, the order is stated to have been passed, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the said impugned order while remitting back to the authority to pass a fresh order. To a limited extent, Shri S.K. Pal might be right in contending that the writ petitioner had worked for the maximum period when employed through the contractor but, since, the said details are lacking and the order itself is not in conformity with law, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in the following terms:
(a) The order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the District Sport Officer, Mainpuri is set aside.
(b) The matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
(c) For facilitation and early disposal, the writ petitioner be put to notice to put forward its stand so as to enable him to take the grounds which are available under law including the judgment he seeks to rely and the competent authority shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
October 10, 2025
A. V. Singh
