Ram Kinkar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Woman And Child Development, Lucknow And 6 Others

Held

The Court observed that the petitioner's grievances entailed factual aspects. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director, Department of Woman, Welfare of U.P., Lucknow. This authority is directed to consider and decide the representation within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of the order is produced. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the claims regarding honorarium payment, arrears, interest, or account details, deferring them for consideration through the representation process.

Facts

The petitioner, Ram Kinkar Pandey, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs from the respondent authorities, including payment of honorarium strictly in accordance with government orders dated 04/01/2019 and 18/04/2019. He also sought sympathetic consideration of his representation dated 20/11/2023, payment of arrears of illegally deducted/unpaid honorarium with 12% interest, and details of his ESIC, EFP, and GST account. The writ petition was heard by the Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievances involved factual aspects.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to pay the petitioner's honorarium strictly in accordance with Government Order dated 04/01/2019 and letter dated 18/04/2019? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to sympathetically consider the petitioner's representation dated 20/11/2023? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to pay arrears of honorarium along with 12% interest? (Question of law and fact) 4. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to provide details of the petitioner's ESIC, EFP, and GST account? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought mandamus to compel the authorities to comply with the government orders regarding honorarium payment, to consider his representation, to pay arrears with interest, and to provide account details. The specific arguments for each relief are not detailed in the judgment beyond the reliefs sought. Respondent's arguments: The State Counsel appeared for the opposite parties. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State Counsel.