Allahabad High Court
Ram Awadh Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 November, 2012
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Judgment reserved on 17.07.2012)
(Judgment delivered on 01.11.2012)
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 70106 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Petitioners who are 11 in numbers were appointed as clerks in Flood Division Azamgarh from 1973 to 1978. They all retired long before. They are claiming benefit of Government Order dated 3.9.2001 copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition through which certain types of Government employees were held entitled to promotional/time pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 either from 1.3.2002 or when they complete 25 years of their service. Two of the employees of Government of U.P. filed writ petition no.36816 of 2004 Ram Chandra Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and others which was decided by this Court on 21.4.2008 and it was held that both the petitioners of the said writ petition were entitled to the benefit of the G.O. dated 3.9.2001, copy of the said judgment is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter present petitioners also filed writ petition in this Court being writ petition no.30870 of 2010 which was disposed of on 25.5.2010. The entire judgment copy of which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition is quoted below:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by the judgment rendered in writ petition No.36816 of 2004 decided on 21.04.2004.
This writ petition is also being disposed of finally in view of the same terms and direction.
No order passed as to costs."
Thereafter petitioners filed representation before Executive Engineer Drainage Division Ballia which was rejected on 23.10.2010. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
In the main judgment on which petitioners are placing reliance (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) it is categorically mentioned in the first paragraph that petitioner no.1 was appointed on 11.1.1973 as Junior Clerk on 11.1.1973 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 1.9.1983; similarly petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Junior Clerk on 11.8.1972 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 27.6.1989. Thereafter, in third para of the said judgment it is mentioned that in view of paragraph 2(a) of the G.O. dated 3.9.2001 those junior clerks who had put in 24 years of satisfactory service and had not been granted two promotions in the meanwhile would be entitled to the time pay scale on completion of their 24 years of satisfactory service. In the impugned order it is mentioned that all the petitioners were granted first promotion from the post of Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk on 1.9.1983, thereafter, they all were granted Second Promotion from the post of Senior to Senior Assistant on 1.9.1997, hence they were not entitled to the benefit of G.O. dated 3.9.2001. This statement of fact in the impugned order has not been denied in the writ petition. Accordingly, as petitioners had they already been granted two promotions hence they were not entitled to the benefit of G.O. dated 3.9.2001.
Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.11.2012
vkg
