HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4501 of 2012 Petitioner :- Jitendra Mohal Shukla & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.P. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey for the respondents 1, 2 and 3.
This writ petition has questioned the correctness of the decision of the State Government dated 22nd November, 2011 with regard to recommendations of the Equivalence Committee for Pay Committee (2008) in relation to the claim of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Social Welfare). The petitioners prayed that a mandamus should also be issued directing the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Committee that have been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition vis-a-vis the aforesaid post in the Social Welfare Department where a recommendation has been made to treat the petitioner in the pay-scale of 5000-8000 and grant them the Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300 to 34800 and Grade pay of Rs.4200.
The petitioners had made a representation but the contention is that the said representation has been completely overlooked and the recommendations made by the Pay Committee have not been taken into consideration resulting in the passing of the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2011, Annexure-2 to the writ petition which does not contain any reason for rejecting the said contention of the petitioner or even any reason for not accepting the recommendations of the Pay Committee.
A counter-affidavit has been filed and in Paragraphs 3, 5 and 8 of the counter-affidavit a distinction has been sought to be drawn in order to justify the stand of respondents on the strength of the qualification of the feeder cadre of the post held by the petitioners namely that of the Village Development Officer. It is contended in the counter-affidavit that in view of the source of recruitment and also the qualifications prescribed for the feeder cadre the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Hostel Superintendent that has been made an issue for claiming the aforesaid pay-scale. The counter-affidavit categorically states that in view of the difference in educational qualifications and source of recruitment this claim is inadmissible.
The petitioners have filed a rejoinder-affidavit and have brought on record the advertisement under which the petitioners were directly recruited and not promoted from the post of Village Development Officer. The said advertisement indicates that the qualification prescribed for the Assistant Development Officer through direct recruitment is graduation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are graduates and had been accordingly selected as such. When the petitioners are not promotees from the cadre of Village Development Officer, and are possessed of the higher qualification of Graduation which is also the qualification of Hostel Superintendent then as urged by the petitioner's counsel, it is for this reason that the recommendations of the Pay Committee in respect of the Social Welfare Department were categorically made in favour of the petitioners.
We may extract the suggestions, the discussion and the recommendation in respect of the claim of the petitioners by the said said Pay Committee in its report. The suggestion that was received is as follows and extracted hereinunder:-
^^¼1½ lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lekt dY;k.k½ ds inksa ij mPphd`r osrueku : 5000&8000 ds lkn`'; osru cS.M&2 :9300& 34800 ,oa xzsM osru : 4200 vuqeU; djk;k tk;s rFkk bl in ds dk;Z ,oa nkf;Ro ds n`f"Vxr i;Zos{kh; laoxZ dks feyus okyk okgu HkRrk Hkh vuqeU; fd;k tk;A^^ The discussion in this regard which has been made the basis of recommendation is extracted hereinunder :-
¼4½ lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lekt dY;k.k½ ds inksa gsrq fu/kkZfjr dk;[email protected];Ro ,oa lapkfyr dh tk jgh lks'ky lsDVj dh ,slh ;kstuk;sa ftuesa cM+h /kujkf'k fufgr gS rFkk fodkl [k.M Lrj ds vU; foHkkxks ds lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkfj;ksa ls fo|eku ikjLifjd lkis{krk ds n`f"Vxr bu inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq orZeku es fo|eku O;oLFkk ds LFkku ij buds 33 izfr'kr inksa dks 05 o"kZ dh lsok okys xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lekt dY;k.k½ rFkk 17 izfr'kr inksa dks 05 o"kZ dh lsok okys lqijokbtj ds inksa ls izksUufr }kjk rFkk 'ks"k 50 izfr'kr inks dks lekftd dk;[email protected] lekt'[email protected] euksfoKku fo"k; esa Lukrd mikf/k ,oa dEI;wVj lapkyu esa ^vks^ yscy fMIyksek okys vH;fFkZ;ks ls lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk vk;ksx ds ek/;e ls Hkjs tkus dh O;oLFkk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, bu inksa ij lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lgdkjhrk½@ lgk;d [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ds inksa ds fy, laLrqr fd;s x;s osrueku ds lkn`'; ij osrueku : 5000&8000 ds lkn`'; iqjjhf{kr osru lajpuk esa osru cS.M ,oa xszM osru rRdky izHkko ls vuqeU; djk;k tkuk mi;qDr gksxkA^^ The recommendations that was finally made by the Committee is extracted hereinunder :-
¼3½ lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lekt dY;k.k½ ds inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq orZeku esa fo|eku O;oLFkk ds LFkku ij buds 33 izfr'kr inksa dks 05 o"kZ dh lsok okys xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lekt dY;k.k½ rFkk 17 izfr'kr inksa dks 05 o"kZ dh lsok okys lqijokbtj ds inksa ls izksUufr }kjk rFkk 'ks"k 50 izfr'kr inksa dks lekftd dk;[email protected] lekt'[email protected] euksfoKku fo"k; esa Lukrd mikf/k ,oa dEI;wVj lapkyu esa ^vks^ yscy fMIyksek okys vH;fFkZ;ks ls lh/kh HkrhZ vk;ksx ds ek/;e ls Hkjs tkus dh O;oLFkk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, bu inksa ij iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa osru cS.M&2 : 9300&34800 ,oa xszM osru : 4200 rRdky izHkko ls vuqeU; djk;k tk;A^^ It is thus clear from the aforesaid Pay Committee Report that the recommendations in favour of the petitioners were clearly made for the reasons stated therein in the Pay-Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 with a Grade-Pay of Rs.4200.
The impugned order/communication dated 22nd November, 2011 while proceeding to deal with the issue simply states that no anomaly appears to be evident in respect of any other post and therefore the recommendations were being accepted with the modifications referred to therein.
Having heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, we do not find any reason available in the order dated 22nd November, 2011 for not accepting the recommendation of the Pay Committee as extracted hereinabove. The counter-affidavit of the State also proceeds on the assumption of distinction of qualification and source of recruitment which is not the basis of rejection by the State Government.
The reasons stated in the counter-affidavit cannot supplement the reasons contained in the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2011, and in our opinion which also does not take into consideration the recommendations of the Pay Committee.
We are therefore of the opinion that the matter requires a re-consideration in the light of the recommendations so made and the State Government will have to pass a reasoned and speaking order for either accepting or not accepting the claim of the petitioners. To that extent the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2011 is vitiated.
We accordingly quash the order dated 22nd November, 2011 only to the extent of Clause-6 therein vis-a-vis only the post of Assistant Development Officer of the Social Welfare Department. This judgment would stand confined only to the consideration of this issue.
The State Government is therefore now directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.
Order Date :- 25.5.2017
Ashutosh
[Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.]