HRIDAY NARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in present bunch of writ petitions are retrenched employees of U.P. Cement Corporation which was wounded way back in the year 1999 and have approached this Court that their claim for absorption in any alternative government department be considered in terms of Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (for short 'Rules of 1991') as well as that benefit of absorption granted to other retrenched employees of same Corporation by a judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 1 SCC 397 be extended to them also.

(2.) S/Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Advocate as well as Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Sri R.K. Singh Gaharwar, Sri Vijay Kumar, Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Sri Abhay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shatrughan Sonwal, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Sri Animesh Srivastava, Sri Krishna Pratap Singh Kaushik and Sri Rahul Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for petitioners have vehemently urged that petitioners were before this Court through their Association way back in the year 1998, when Corporation was under process of winding by way of filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21199/1998, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 7/7/1998 that claim of petitioners therein be considered for absorption in accordance with law. For reference, relevant part of said order is quoted below :-

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has further submitted that despite various communications and representations, submitted in pursuance of above referred order, their respective claim for absorption were not considered.