Allahabad High Court
Rajeshwar Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy.Chini ... on 17 November, 2020
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20719 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy.Chini Udyog/Ganna Vibhag,Lko.&Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla,Devendra Gupta,Priya Pandey,Sudama Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amarnath Singh Baghel,Krishana Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. Sudhanshu Chauhan learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 and Mr. K.K. Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.3.
Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to pay difference of arrears of salary between the post of Assistant Pan Man and Pan Incharge with effect from2014 along with interest. With regard to aforesaid relief, petitioner had earlier filed writ petition no. 22477 of 2016, which was disposed of by means of order dated 3.3.2020 directing opposite parties to take decision thereupon.
Learned counsels for opposite parties submit that the petitioner's representation not only for promotion on the post of Pan Man has been rejected by means of order dated 2nd September, 2020 but it has also been noticed in the said order that difference of salary between the two posts is already being paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in case the petitioner has a grievance with regard to the observations made in the rejection order, he has remedy of filing of appeal under Regulation 61 of U.P. Cooperative Employees and Distillery Employees Service Regulation of 2015.
Learned counsel for petitioner disputes the fact that he is being paid salary for the post of Pan Man.
In view of aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that there is disputed question of fact involved with regard to payment of salary to petitioner for the post of Pan Man and as such it would be appropriate for the concerned authority/ appellate authority to look into the matter in terms of Regulation 61 of the aforesaid Regulation of 2015.
Consequently, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the concerned authority under Regulation 61 of the Regulation of 2015 for agitating his grievances. In case such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of his presentation for which purpose, the delay shall be condonable in terms of proviso 2 of Regulation 61.
In view of aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.11.2020 prabhat