Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1056 of 2010 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thr Prin. Sec. Cane Dept Sugar Lko. Respondent :- Satyadev Singh Petitioner Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.G. Husnain Respondent Counsel :- Ravindra Singh,D.K. Singh,Ravindra 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/-
