Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19927 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Khelawan And 15 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kundan Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
All the sixteen petitioners claim that they were employee of the Uttar Pradesh Cement Corporation Limited, Chunar (for short, the "Corporation"). The Corporation was a Government Corporation and it was owned by the State Government. It is stated that the Corporation was wound up on 08th December, 1999. Since all the three units of the Corporation were wound up, the petitioners were retrenched from 31st July, 2001. After the liquidation, it is stated, the petitioners were assigned claim numbers. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has given the details of appointment of the petitioner nos. 1 to 8 but no detail has been given regarding appointment of the petitioner nos. 9 to 16.
The contention of the petitioners is that the State Government has framed a rule, known as Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (for short, the "Rules, 1991"), Rule 2(c) whereof defines the retrenched employee. It is contended that the petitioners fall within the definition of the retrenched employees, thus they were entitled for the benefit of the said Rules by way of their absorption in other services as required under the Rules, 1991, however, due to spate of litigations the names of the petitioners could not be considered. It is further contended that the matter, which was carried to the Supreme Court in the year 2009-10, has now been finally set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Verma and others v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of 2009, vide its judgement and order dated 09th September, 2015, therefore, the case of the petitioners may now be considered.
While disposing of the batch of civil appeals, in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) the Supreme Court has issued following directions:
"18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no reason that the appellants herein should not reap the benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is directed that they shall be absorbed by the State Government as per their seniority and be given the benefits of increments, within eights weeks hence. Needless to say, they will be entitled to their seniority as per the prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service, he shall get the retiral benefits inclusive of pension.
19. At this juncture, the question arises as to what amount should be paid towards back wages. In this context, our attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court in contempt proceeding. However, after some debate, learned counsel for the appellants left it to the discretion of this Court. Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State vehemently opposed with regard to grant of any back wages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on this score and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the cause of justice would be best sub- served if each of the appellant is paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so directed. It shall be computed as per our directions issued hereinbefore within a period of twelve weeks hence and be paid to the appellants.
21. The aforesaid appeals which relate to U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."
The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra), the claim of the petitioners may also be considered.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. With their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice require that the grievance of the petitioners be considered by the first respondent in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners are directed to give full details with regard to their appointment as claimed by them alongwith certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Rmk.