Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Jitendra Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 June, 2010

Author: Pankaj Mithal

Bench: Pankaj Mithal

Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36017 of 2010
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Alok Kumar Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, leaned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1,2 and 3 and Sri Ravindra Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.

4. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated 22.3.2010 published in the official gazette dated 17.4.2010 and the consequential order dated 26.4.2010 for disengagement of the petitioners as seasonal staff. The aforesaid notifications and similar consequential orders were subject matter of challenge in another writ petition against which Special Appeal No. 943 of 2010 (Navneet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was preferred by the Division Bench. In the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 10.6.2010 not only the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the above writ petition was stayed but the notification dated 22.3.2010 as published in the gazette dated 17.4.2010 and the consequential order of disengagement was also stayed.

In view of the above interim order of the Division Bench, petitioners are also entitled for similar interim protection.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and allowed a month's time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.

List this case after expiy of the aforesaid period.

Till the next date of listing the operation of the notification dated 22.3.2010 published in the gazette dated 17.4.2010 and the consequential order of 26.4.2010, so far as it relates to disengagement of the petitioners shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that in case the petition succeeds the petitioners would be entitled for remuneration salary for the entire crushing season irrespective of the fact as to whether they have been assigned work or not.

Order Date :- 21.6.2010 SR