Heard Sri Daya Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to count the whole period of service rendered by petitioner as Kurk Amin for the purposes of post retiral benefits and to grant the benefit of judgment rendered in the case of Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, decided on 25th November, 2008, vide following orders:-
"In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioners for appropriate pay scales with all other benefits with effect from 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 and onwards treating their appointment on the post of Kurk Amin in the pay scale of 354-550 and Sahyogi to Kurk Amin in the pay scale of 305-390 with effect from 30.6.1984 and 8.6.1999 respectively as is evident from Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition and to pass an appropriate order determining benefits in respect to appropriate pay scale, arrears of salary etc. to which the petitioners are entitled and, thereafter pay the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority. The order impugned in the writ petition shall not be construed to have any worth in considering the matter as directed above."
A special appeal filed against such judgment was dismissed with further directions issued. The State of U.P. preferred Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2017, which has been decided by the Apex Court on 10th January, 2017. The order passed in special appeal has been modified to the extent the Division Bench had granted relief beyond the relief granted by learned Single Judge. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge, however, have been sustained. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that such benefits are also liable to be extended to petitioner.
Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, no time is being allowed to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit and the writ petition is being disposed of, at this stage itself.
Considering the innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, opposite party no.3 i.e. the Collector/ District Magistrate, Jhansi (opposite party No.3), is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said opposite party. The concerned authority shall decide the grievance of petitioner raised vide representation dated 05.11.2019 by speaking and reasoned order considering the observations in the case of Chandra Prakash Pandey (supra), in case the same is applicable.
In view of aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]