Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM NARAIN TRIPATHI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' ITS SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPTT. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Narain Tripathi And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secretary Irrigation Deptt. & Others - WRIT - A No. 21076 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8434 (4 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

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.

D/-4.5.2007

SCS/21076


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.