Court No. - 22 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4735 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Principal Secy.Sugar Industry Lucknow Petitioner Counsel :- Shailesh Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh,Puskar Baghail Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the opposite
parties.
The present petition has been filed with the prayer that the petitioners may be
granted parity in scale with their counterparts working in the mill and the
petitioners are also working in the same capacity, but they are being denied
the same scale and they are being paid less salary.
Counsel for the opposite parties has raised preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the writ petition by placing reliance upon the case of
General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. vs.
Satrughan Nishad and others, 2003 (8) SCC 639 and has submitted that in
the said case it has been held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the
cooperative sugar federation does not come within the ambit of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid case of Satrughan
Nishad (supra) has been taken into consideration by a Division Bench of this
Court in Writ- A No.49111 of 2009, Netra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others, and it has been held that the cooperative sugar federation would come
within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India while placing
reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and another vs. Radhey Shyam Rai, (2009) 5 SCC 577.
Looking to the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court, I find that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to maintain
the writ petition in this Court as the cooperative sugar federation is bound by
the directions issued by the State Government from time to time and the State
Government has pervasive control over the cooperative sugar federation and
petitioners are the members of the said sugar federation.
Counsel for the opposite parties could not disclose as to what is the share of
the Government in the present federation on the basis of which it should be
determined as to what will be the position of the sugar mill.
In the present case, only a direction has been sought for disposing of the
representation of the petitioners. Therefore, looking to the innocuous prayer
of the petitioners, the opposite parties are directed to dispose of the
representation of the petitioners dated 7.4.2008, contained in Annexure No.12
to the writ petition, by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two
months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of
finally.
Order Date :- 16.7.2010
Rao/-