Lal Chand and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Shantanu Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The petitioners who are two in number claim to have been appointed as Watcher in the Forest Department on daily wages and have put in more than 12 and 14 years of service with the department. They state that under the regularization Rules, 2001 they are entitled to be regularized as and when the posts are available with the department and their applications for regularization are pending, therefore, they are entitled to minimum pay scale as is being paid to other Class-IV employees of the department. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Putti Lal, in support of their submission.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in case the claim of the petitioners are clearly covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above there is no reason why they be not given the same benefits. However, learned Standing Counsel states that record relating to both the petitioners available with the departmental authority will have to be gone through to come to a conclusion whether the petitioners are entitled to be paid minimum pay scale in accordance with the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

In view of the aforesaid submission, it is provided that Respondent No. 2, Conservator of Forest, Azamgarh, may consider the claim of both the petitioners for minimum pay scale after perusing their records and if he comes to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for minimum pay scale in accordance with the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as referred to above, he shall ensure that the petitioners are given their due without any further delay.

The petitioner''s may file a true copy of this writ petition alongwith annexures and certified copy of this order before the Respondent No. 2, within a period of two weeks from today and in case that is done the Respondent No. 2 should pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter, after going through the service records of the petitioners.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioners in this writ petition and that has to be decided by the Respondent No. 2.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.