Heard Sri Awadhesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
On the first date of admission this Court has passed order dated 12.8.2021 as under :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On a query made to learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to maintainability of writ petition on two grounds viz., (i) latches in challenging the order dated 17.2.2014 as well as (ii) in regard to the payment of salary to the petitioner, appointed against the non-sanctioned post, he requested for the grant of one day time so that he may address the Court on the point of maintainability of writ petition.
Time is allowed.
Accordingly, put up this matter as fresh on 16.8.2021."
Today, Sri Awadhesh Shukla, learned counsel has tried to explain the laches by submitting that even if the order dated 17.2.2014 which has been assailed by this petition is not quashed in that event too the petitioner who is working on the post of Sweeper/Chowkidar since 1989 should have been paid appropriate benefits which are being paid to the similarly situated employees in terms of order passed by this Court in catena of cases. He has also submitted that he may be permitted to not press the writ petition at this stage and the liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority i.e. opposite party no. 2 preferring a fresh representation taking all pleas and grounds available to him and direction may be issued to pass any appropriate orders.
Be that as it may, if the petitioner is serving on the post of Sweeper/Chowkidar in institution in question since February, 1989 then he should have been paid those benefits which are being paid to the identically placed employees. Even if the impugned order dated 17.2.2014 survives and no interference is made in that case considering the length of service of the petitioner and considering the aspect about the similar benefits being paid to the similarly placed employees, appropriate decision may be taken by the competent authority.
Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue and without interfering the impugned order dated 17.2.2014, I hereby dispose of this petition finally permitting the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the competent authority taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him enclosing therewith copies of relevant documents and judgments of Courts which are necessary for the disposal of the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner, the competent authority may take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order preferably with a period of three months and decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.
This order has been passed treating this writ petition as not pressed at this stage.
Writ petition is disposed of in view of above.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)