High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Narain Tripathi And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secretary Irrigation Deptt. & Others - WRIT - A No. 21076 of 2007  RD-AH 8434 (4 May 2007)
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners.
By this writ petition the petitioners has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of regular salary from the date of initial appointment of the petitioners as part time Tube well Operators. Petitioners case is that the petitioners were appointed as part time Tube Well Operators between the years 1983 to 1985. They joined and worked as part time Tube Well Operators. Since 18th May, 1994 they have been paid admissible scale of salary of Rs. 3050/- and they have been regularised on 1.8.1998. After regularisation they are getting salary in the pay scale. Now by this writ petition the petitioners want for payment of salary in the full scale from the date of initial appointment. The basis of the said claim has been made a case of one Daya Shanker Maurya who filed a claim petition before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court which was allowed and he was directed to be paid against the said order. The writ petition was filed being writ petition No. 32193 of 2006 which was dismissed as barred by time. Subsequently, review application was filed which was also dismissed on 2.11.2006. The Special Leave Petition was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the said judgement which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has claimed the benefit as given to Daya Shanker Maurya of the salary. From perusal of the order which have been brought on the record it is clear that Daya Shanker Maurya has filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act which was allowed by the labour court. The writ petition field against that order has been dismissed as barred by time. From perusal of the judgement of the High Court it is clear that the writ petition was dismissed as barred by time and there was no adjudication on merits nor there is any ratio of the judgement of the High Court which can be taken benefit by the petitioners. The order of the labour court under Section 33-C (2) was for the benefit of Daya Shanker Maurya who filed the said application. No case has been made out for issuing mandamus to pay the petitioners the salary in the pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as part time Tube Well Operators. No other submission has been pressed in the writ petition. The mandamus as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.