Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44088 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ramsukh Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyem Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner no.1 has alleged that he retired on 30.6.2014. Petitioner no.2 has alleged that he retired on 31.12.2008. In paragraphs 6 to 11 it has been stated that the services of the petitioners were terminated by order dated 31.8.1995 against which they filed writ petition No.30486 of 1995 in which an interim order was passed but ultimately the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 20.4.2012. Against this order a Special Appeal No.996 of 2012 was filed in which an interim order of status quo as on 20.04.2012, was passed on 22.5.2012. Thus, the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated 31.8.1995 has not yet been set aside or quashed. In paragraph 15 and 16 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under:
"15. That aggrieved, the petitioners represented before the respondent authorities at a number of occasions with a request to sanction all the retiral benefits the petitioners are entitled for however no orders have been passed by them in this regard.
16. That even it if is considered that the petitioners are only a seasonal collection peon and have not been regularised, even then they are entitled for all the retiral benefits in view of Government Order dated 1.7.1989 and dated 26.8.1989. True copies of Government Orders dated 1.7.1989 and dated 26.8.1989 are annexed as Annexure No.8 & 9 respectively to this writ petition."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were seasonal collection peon but were not regularised. However, they are entitled for retiral benefits in view of the Government Order dated 1.7.1989 and 20.6.1989.
Learned standing counsel points out that in paragraph 15 of the writ petition the petitioners have stated that they have filed representations to the aforesaid effect before the authority concerned. Therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, expeditiously.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this order alongwith a representation.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018/vkg