HARISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
/12815/2024 · 2025-01-09
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170777 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170777 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1505 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12815 of 2024 Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari,Jitendra Kumar Singh,Mithlesh Kumar Sharma,Pallavi Vatsala Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Jain Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Ms. Kavya Jain, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Shishir Jain learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to amend the order of regularization pertaining to petitioner on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) with effect from 24th November, 1998 according parity with similarly situated Sub Engineers who have been granted such retrospective regularization. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to reckon the period of grant of time scale of pay to petitioners with effect from 24th November, 1998 in parity with other similarly situated employees have also been sought.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by High Court of Uttarkhand dated 21st March, 2024 in Special Appeal No. 454 of 2018 to buttress his submissions.
4. Learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 however has refuted
submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the ground that claim of petitioner is highly belated and even otherwise the directions issued by the High Court at Uttarakhand would be inapplicable since the judgment is based not on merits but on concession of counsel of the opposite parties.
5. Nonetheless since petitioner has already submitted representations before the concerned authority and at present learned counsel for
petitioner restricts prayer for final decision with regard to same, without entering into the merits of the case opposite party No. 2 i.e. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow is
directed to decide petitioners' representation dated 6th July, 2024 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is submitted before the concerned authority. The petitioners shall annex a copy of the aforesaid representation dated 6th July, 2024 along with a copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench