Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thr Prin. Sec. Cane Dept ... vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Others on 8 July, 2010
Bench: R.K. Agrawal, Abhinava Upadhya
Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1059 of 2010 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thr Prin. Sec. Cane Dept Sugar Lko. Respondent :- Vijay Bahadur Singh And Others Petitioner Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.G. Husnain Respondent Counsel :- Ravindra Singh,D.K. Singh Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21st May 2010 passed by the learned single Judge. The State appellant appears aggrieved with the directions issued by the learned single Judge to examine the claim and in the event any arrangement of funds are required to be made, to issue necessary instructions within a time bound period.
We have heard Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant, Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri D.K. Singh on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Sri Ravindra Singh on behalf of the remaining respondents and have perused the judgment and order dated 21.5.2010 passed by the learned single Judge.
Sri Hasnain, learned counsel submitted that the direction issued to the Principal Secretary of the department arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the writ petition to examine the claim of the petitioner and in the event any arrangement of funds are required to be made to issue necessary instructions within a time bound period has been passed without giving any opportunity to file counter affidavit to the State respondents in the writ petition and, therefore, the said order is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. He further submitted that in any event, the State is not responsible to make any payment of the retiral benefits to the petitioners therein as there is no relationship of master and servant.
Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel submitted that no mandamus has been issued against the State respondent No. 1 herein for making payment to the petitioners for their retiral dues and the State has only been asked to examine the claim and issue necessary instructions/directions, which does not affect the State and it can not be said to be a person aggrieved by the said order. According to him, the service condition of the petitioner is governed by the U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975, which is a statutory regulation and the state exercises supervisory powers and control over the society under various statutes and, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly asked the respondent No. 1 to examine the claim and to issue necessary instructions/directions.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties and are in full agreement with the submission made by Sri K.P. Agrawal that no mandamus has been issued to the respondent No. 1 for making payment of the retiral dues. He has only been asked to look into the claim of the petitioner and issue necessary directions/instructions to the authority concerned.
In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Sate can not be said to be a person aggrieved by the said order.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010 AM/-