Allahabad High Court
Ram Bali Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 October, 2013
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved on 16.08.2013
Delivered on 09.10.2013
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25494 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Bali Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. and others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Swarn Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2011 whereby petitioner has been denied absorption and parity in Group 'C' service with reference to the status and rank of the post he held in U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSCC Limited") wherefrom he was retrenched and thereafter absorbed on a civil post in Irrigation Department of State of U.P.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under.
3. The case set up by petitioner in the writ petition is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the erstwhile UPSCC Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and owned by State Government, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 450/- per month vide letter of appointment dated 06.12.1977 issued by Senior Personnel Officer. The UPSCC Limited came to be closed and petitioner was retrenched on 08.12.1999. The petitioner alongwith others preferred Writ Petition No. 45807 of 2006, claiming absorption on any appropriate post in the State of U.P. in terms of "U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of the State Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991" (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules"). The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 26.09.2006 and this Court directed the State of U.P. to absorb petitioner and others in any vacancy of Group 'C' post (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The aforesaid judgment attained finality after dismissal of intra-Court appeal as also the Special Leave Petition. Consequently, petitioner was appointed as Tracer in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- per month. The petitioner claimed that post of Tracer is a Group 'D' post and, therefore, his absorption is not in accordance with the judgment of this Court as also that of Apex Court dated 31.01.2008, whereby special leave petition was dismissed. Hence he made a representation to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 30.01.2010 requesting that he should be absorbed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the admissible pay scale. It was also pointed out that basic pay of petitioner on the post of Tracer was also fixed wrongly, inasmuch as, vide order dated 25.01.2010 petitioner was placed at the basic pay of Rs. 5900/- while another person, Om Prakash Srivastava, a Tracer, was placed at the basic pay of Rs. 8190/-, who was also working alongwith petitioner in UPSCC Limited and was holding a lower rank than petitioner. It is said that petitioner was Junior Engineer (Civil) in UPSCC Limited while Om Prakash Srivastava was Instrument Mechanic. The petitioner was appointed in 1977 while Om Prakash Srivastava was appointed in 1982. It is thus said that in the matter of fixation of pay also, petitioner was discriminated, and the judgment of this Court was not complied with in words and spirit.
4. The respondents did not respond to the said representation, whereupon another representation was made on 28.12.2010 to all the respondents. It was also prayed that service rendered in UPSCC Limited should also be given due consideration for the purpose of pension, gratuity etc. and since he was retrenched on 08.12.1999, he should also be paid arrears of salary since then, by maintaining continuity of service. It is also said that an office memorandum was issued by Principal Secretary, Industrial Development pursuant to the undertaking given before Apex Court that all those who were party to the special leave petition, decided on 31.01.2008, shall be deemed absorbed in the Government service from the date of their retrenchment in UPSCC Limited and their pay and scale etc. shall be so determined so as to make parity or near thereto. They shall also be entitled for added increments and arrears but the service rendered in UPSCC Limited shall not qualify for pension. In view of the above office memorandum of Principal Secretary, the petitioner claimed to have made another representation and it is thereafter the State Government issued an order dated 17.06.2009 communicating its decision for absorption of petitioner in Group 'C' service (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) in Minor Irrigation Department. However, instead of complying with the said order, in its true spirit, the Executive Engineer issued a letter of appointment dated 03.12.2009 to the petitioner appointing him on the post of "Tracer" in pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-. The petitioner, being unemployed, joined the post but pursued his representation, whereafter the impugned order dated 28.01.2011 has been passed.
5. It goes without saying that petitioner's prayer for absorption as Junior Engineer in respondents-Department cannot be accepted for the reason that the post of Junior Engineer in State of U.P., whether in the department of Minor Irrigation, Irrigation or Public Works Department etc., everywhere it is within the purview of Public Service Commission. Since the judgment, pursuant whereto petitioner has been absorbed in Government service, itself says that retrenched employees of UPSCC Limited shall be absorbed in Group 'C' post (other than those which are within the purview of Public Service Commission), therefore, petitioner cannot be absorbed or appointed as Junior Engineer.
6. So far as his entitlement for arrears of salary treating him as absorbed in Government service from the date of his retrenchment is concerned, on this aspect, in reference to points no. 3 and 4, the impugned order dated 28.01.2011 itself has recorded a finding in his favour, therefore, respondents must do requisite consequential exercise and pay amount payable to petitioner in view of the decision with reference to points no. 3 and 4 taken in the impugned order, without any further delay, and, in any case, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
7. However, the matter does not rest here.
8. Another issue raised is that the post of Tracer, under the rules is a Group 'D' post, and, therefore, absorption of petitioner on the post of 'Tracer' is not in accordance with direction issued by this Court in its judgment dated 26.09.2006, which has attained finality after dismissal of special leave petition by Apex Court on 31.01.2008.
9. The only question, thus, which is now to be examined by this Court is, "whether appointment of petitioner on the post of 'Tracer' can be said to be an appointment on Group 'C' post". In other words, "whether by appointment on the post of Tracer vide order dated 03.12.2009, petitioner has been given a post in Group 'C' cadre". In other words, again, "whether the post of 'Tracer', either on the date of appointment of petitioner or even till today, is a Group 'C' post or not".
10. It is not in dispute that the post of Tracer is governed by statutory rules framed under proviso to Rule 309(1). The rule is U.P. Laghu Sinchai Vibhag (Rekhankan) Sewa Niyamawali, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1992"). Rule 2 declares that U.P. Minor Irrigation Department (Tracer) Service is a non gazetted service, which shall include Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. The aforesaid rules contemplate three cadres (1) Tracer (Anurekhak), (2) Draftsman (Naksha Navis) and (3) Computer (Sanganak). The post of Tracer is the lowest in status as per aforesaid rules, which is liable to be filled in by direct recruitment in its entirety. The then applicable pay scale was Rs. 825-1200/-. However, such Tracers who have seven years of satisfactory service and a certificate of Tracer, were entitled for pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. The rest two posts are higher in status, inasmuch as on the post of Draftsman, 50% recruitment is by direct and 50% by promotion from amongst the Tracers. The then applicable pay scale was Rs. 1200-2040/-. The third cadre, i.e., Computer (Sanganak) is the highest service under Rules, 1992, which is to be filled in 100% by promotion from amongst 'Draftsman' and the then admissible pay scale to Computer was Rs. 1400-2600/-.
11. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, sworn by Sri P.R. Chaurasia, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department on 09.07.2013. It is stated, in para 6, that, under Rules, 1992, the post of 'Tracer' has been mentioned as Class IV post. It further explains that under 6th Pay Commission, the new pay scale applicable to Tracer is Rs. 5200-20200/- and now it has the status of a Group 'C' post and necessary proposal for amendment in service rules is pending before State Government. In this regard, a letter dated 29.09.2011 has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit, which is a letter sent by Sri Sushil Kumar, Principal Secretary, Lucknow and addressed to Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department. It conveys the Government decision of upgraded pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- admissible to Tracer, w.e.f. 17.06.2010. In para 2 thereof, it further says as under:
^^2- mDr O;oLFkk dk lekos'k djrs gq, la'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh ;Fkk'kh?kz iz[;kfir djk;h tk;sxhA**
"Incorporating aforesaid provisions, amended rules shall be notified at the earliest." (English translation by the Court)
12. Sri P.R. Chaurasia, Chief Engineer has also made a proposal vide letter dated 29.10.2010 to the State Government for making necessary amendment in Rules, 1992.
13. The petitioner has insisted that State Government, vide order dated 17.06.2009, directed for his absorption on a Group 'C' post, still, instead of absorbing him on Group 'C' post, he was absorbed on a Group 'D' post. For upgradation of his status, the matter is still pending which shows that he has not been absorbed/appointed in terms of judgment of this Court as also the State Government's order dated 17.06.2009.
14. This Court vide order dated 26.04.2013, noticing discrepancies and stand taken by respondents, required them to file a supplementary counter affidavit giving clear status of the post of 'Tracer'. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by Sri Phirtu Ram, Director, Minor Irrigation and Water Use, Training Centre, Lucknow, sworn on 29.07.2013. Therein he admitted in para 5 that in Rules, 1992, the post of 'Tracer' is mentioned as 'Class IV'. He further said that as per recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, the post of 'Tracer' has been upgraded as Class-III in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- and for change of Rules, accordingly, amendment has been proposed vide letter dated 29.10.2011. Consequently, Karmik department of U.P. Government has issued letter dated 14.05.2012 clarifying general categorisation of post in various groups vis-a-vis pay scale, which is as under:
dze la0
inksa dk fooj.k
oxhZdj.k
1-
osru cS.M&4 ¼:0 37400&67000½ ,oa xzsM osru :0 [email protected]& o vf/kd xzsM osru @ osrueku ds inA
Lkewg & d
2-
osru cS.M&2 ¼:0 9300&34800½ ,oa xzsM osru :0 [email protected]& o vf/kd fdUrq osru cS.M&4 ¼37400&67000½ xzsM osru :0 [email protected]& ls de ds inA
Lkewg & [k
3-
osru cS.M&1 ¼:0 5200&20200½ ,oa xzsM osru :0 [email protected]& o vf/kd fdUrq osru cS.M&2 ¼:0 9300&34800½ xzsM osru :0 [email protected]& ls de ds inA
Lkewg & x
4-
osru cS.M&1 ¼:0 5200&20200½ ,oa xzsM osru :0 [email protected]& ls de ds inA
Lkewg &?k
Sl No.
Description of posts
Classification
1.
Posts in Pay Band - 4 (Rs. 37,400-67,000) and Grade Pay Rs.6,600/- and above
Group - A
2.
Posts in Pay Band - 2 (Rs. 9,300-34,800) and Grade Pay Rs.4,600/- and above but below Pay Band - 4 (Rs. 37,400-67,000) and Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/-
Group - B
3.
Posts in Pay Band - 1 (Rs. 5,200-20,200) and Grade Pay Rs. 1,900/- and above but below Pay Band - 2 (Rs. 9,300-34,800) and Grade Pay Rs.4,600/-
Group - C
4.
Posts below Pay Band - 1 (Rs. 5,200-20,200) and Grade Pay Rs. 1,900/-
Group - D
(English translation by the Court)
15. In furtherance thereof, Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government has issued letter dated 21.06.2013 stating that Government has decided to place the post of Tracer in Pay Band-I, Scale Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- in Group 'C'. In para 11 thereof it has been said that petitioner has been given pay scale Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-, as per office memorandum dated 01.05.2012 and letter dated 21.06.2013.
16. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation's letter dated 20.07.2013 has also been placed for perusal of this Court, which shows fixation of pay of petitioner at different stages in the following manner:
^^1& orZeku osru cs.M ,oa xzsM osru cS.M osru 5200&20200
xzsM osru [email protected]&
2-& fnukad 17-8-2010 ls mPphd`r osru cS.M cS.M osru 5200&20200
,oa xzsM osru xzsM osru [email protected]&
3& fnukad 17-8-2010 dks izkIr dj jgs osru 10]090$ 1800 ¾11]890
4& fnukad 17-8-2010 dks osru cS.M ,oa 10]090$1900¾11]990
xzsM osru mPphd`r djrs gq, fu/kkZfjr osru
5& fnukad 1&7&2011 dks osru o`f) mijkUr 10]450$1900¾12]359
fu/kkZfjr osruA
6& fnukad 1&7&2012 dks osru o`f) mijkUr 10]820$1900¾12]720**
1. Present Pay Band and Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band : 5200 - 20200
Grade Pay : 1800/-
2. Upgraded Pay Band and Grade Pay Pay in the Pay Band : w.e.f.17.8.2010 5200 - 20200
Grade Pay : 1900/-
3. Pay drawn on 17.8.2010 10,090 + 1800 = 11,890
4. Pay fixed consequent upon 10,090 + 1900 = 11,990
upgradation in Pay Band and Grade
Pay on 17.8.2010
5. Pay fixed after increment on 1.7.2011 14,450 + 1900 = 12,350
6. Pay fixed after increment on 1.7.2012 10820 + 1900 = 12,720
(English translation by the Court)
17. When enquired from learned Standing Counsel, whether a Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary's letter can result in change of status of a particular post, governed by statutory rules, he could not give any reply and in these facts and circumstances, the Court required this aspect to be clarified by concerned Secretary in the Department.
18. Kumar Arvind Singh Deo, Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Ground Water Department, Lucknow appeared on 16.08.2013 and filed affidavit also. It is said that vide Government Order dated 17.08.2010, State Government decided to provide Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- with Pay Band-I to Tracers who were in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-, as per pre-6th Pay Commission scale. In the matter of Minor Irrigation, another order was issued on 29.09.2011 in furtherance of Government Order dated 17.08.2010, communicating acceptance of Governor to provide Pay Band-I, Scale Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- to 'Tracers' in Minor Irrigation Department. He has also placed on record a letter dated 30.10.2012 of Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government, addressed to Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, which is in the context of amendment of Rules, 1992, enquiring, whether in the light of Government Order dated 14.05.2012, regarding classification of various pay scales in difference groups, the post of Tracer will be treated to be a Group 'C' post or will continue to be a Group 'D' post. In reply thereto the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation recommended that in view of subsequent decision of Government, implementing Pay Band-I, Scale Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- to 'Tracers', vide Government Order dated 29.03.2011, it will be appropriate to treat 'Tracer' in Group 'C'. Consequent thereto, the Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government issued order dated 21.06.2013 communicating that Government has decided to keep the post of Tracer in Group 'C'. He also admitted that though the Rules have not been amended so far and amendment is in process, but still he did not reply categorically whether status of a post/cadre, specifically governed by statutory rules, can stand altered by an executive order. Since the officer himself was present in the Court, two questions were asked, which he replied and his statement was recorded. The same is as under:
"Court's Query:
If the Rules are not amended, then without amendment in Rules, whether by an executive order, change in status of a post is permissible?
Reply:
In our service Rules, 1992, the posts are not categorized as such in Group 'C' and Group 'D'. The categorization of posts under Group 'C' and Group 'D' is done as per the classification issued by Department of Personnel. In this case, after the upgradation of pay scale of Anurekhak, and as per the classification issued by Department of Personnel , they fall in Group 'C'. Before issuing the orders, the Finance Department and Appointment Department of the Government had advised that these posts can be classified in Group 'C'.
Court's Query:
Whether without amendment in U.P. Laghu Sinchai, Vibhag (Rekhankan) Sewa Niyamawali, 1992, the post of Tracer can be treated to be a post of Group 'C' status under executive orders?
(This Court asked him to give a positive, clear and categorical reply to this question.)
Reply:
The classification is connected to the pay scale and under the Rules, Government is authorized to change the pay scale. So, indirectly the classification can be changed by change of pay scale."
19. The entire discussion now crystallize the issue for adjudication further, as under:
(1) Whether, in law, the post of Tracer, even today, can be said to enjoy the status of Group 'C' post, unless and until Rules, 1992 are amended?
(2) Whether, absorption of petitioner on the post of Tracer by appointment order dated 03.12.2009 can be said to be in conformity with the judgment of this Court that he shall be absorbed on a Group 'C' post (outside the purview of Public Service Commission) and the State Government's order dated 17.06.2009?
20. Now coming to the first question formulated above, it is admitted by respondents that as per present status under Rules, 1992, the post of Tracer is a Class-IV post or Group 'D' post. There is no amendment in the Rules. The status of post of 'Tracer' under Rules, 1992 has not undergone any change. It also cannot be doubted that it is always permissible to rule framing authority or Government, as the case may be, to change status of any post or cadre but the same can be done strictly in accordance with procedure prescribed in law and not in a whimsical or arbitrary manner. If the status is governed by Rules, it can be altered in the same way.
21. The classification of various cadres and post with reference to pay scale in different groups, namely, Class-I, Group 'A'; Class-II, Group 'B'; Class-III, Group 'C'; and, Class-IV, Group 'D', can be determined either with reference to pay scale or post. As a matter of practice, Government has determined status of post with reference to pay scales attached to post(s) from time to time.
22. Tracing back history of initial classification, came into existence vide Government Order dated 27.02.1982, which was in compliance to U.P. Pay Commission of 1979-80. The aforesaid Government Order classified various services in Group 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' on the basis of pay scale. The aforesaid classification was with reference to pay scales assigned to various cadres of services and posts. I need not trace out the entire history hereat and suffice it to mention that before 6th Pay Commission's recommendation, classification earlier made, after accepting recommendations of Pay Commission 1997-99, in various groups, vide Government Order dated 07.10.2003, was as under:
dze la[;k
Iknksa dk fooj.k
Iknksa dk oxhZdj.k
:0 10]000&15]200 ,oa blls vf/kd osrueku ds in
Lkewg ^^d**
Oskrueku :0 6]500&10]500 ls osrueku :0 8,550&14] 600 ds in
lewg^^[k**
Oksrueku :0 3]050&4]590 ls osrueku 5]500&9000 ds in
Lkewg ^^x**
Oskrueku :0 3]050&4]590 ls fuEu osrueku ds in
Lkewg ^^?k**
Sl No.
Description of posts
Classification
1.
1.
Posts in the pay-scale of Rs. 10,000 -15,200 and above
Group - A
2.
Posts in the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 to Rs. 8,550-14,600
Group - B
3.
Posts in the pay-scale of Rs. 3,050-4,590 to Rs. 5,500-9,000
Group - C
4.
Post below the pay scale of Rs. 3,050-4,590
Group - D
(English translation by the Court)
23. The incumbents in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 were placed in Group 'C' and Group 'D' both. Here comes the application of relevant services rules. Some of the services in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 were in Group 'D' and some were in Group 'C'. It is admitted that at that time, the post of Tracer was also in the sale of Rs. 3050-4590 and it was a Group 'D' post, in conformity with Rules, 1992.
24. After implementation of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, those Group 'D' employees who were in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, were provided revised pay scale in Pay Band-I, Scale Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with condition that actual benefit/cash payment shall be admissible w.e.f. 08.09.2010.
25. When petitioner was appointed as 'Tracer' vide order dated 03.12.2009, he was in the pay scale of Rs. 2750-4400/-. Vide pay fixation order issued on 09.07.2010 (Annexure-1, page 10-D to the rejoinder affidavit), petitioner's pay was fixed in the scale of Pay Band-I, Scale Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is only thereafter when now the post of Tracer is sought to be upgraded though amendment in rules is still awaited, the respondents claim that status as of now would be that of Group 'C' though rules are yet to be amended. When status of a post is clearly governed by statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309, it cannot be modified, amended or altered by an executive order.
26. It is well settled that the statutory rules cannot be modified or amended by executive orders. In Indra Sawhney and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1992 (Suppl) 3 SCC 217 the Apex Court held that though the executive orders can be issued to fill up the gaps in the rules if the rules are silent on the subject but the executive orders cannot be issued which are inconsistent with the statutory rules already framed. In Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Smithi and another, JT 2001 (8) SC 171 also the same view was taken. In K. Kuppusamy and another Vs. State of T.N. and others, 1998 (8) SCC 469 the Court said that statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice and merely because the government has taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obligated. So long as the rules are not amended in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law, the same would continue to apply and would have to be observed in words and spirit. In Chandra Prakash Madhavrao Dadwa and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1998(8) SCC 154 also the Apex Court expressed the same view, holding that the executive orders cannot be conflicted with the statutory rules of 1977.
27. In my view, so long as the rules are not amended, it cannot be said that status of post of 'Tracer' in Minor Irrigation Department would stand altered by virtue of an executive order and, on the contrary, the said status would continue to be that of Group 'D'. The question no. 1 is answered accordingly.
28. However, before parting, I am constrained to observe that departmental authorities including Principal Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries, are either deliberately misleading the Court or they lack adequate understanding, awareness and knowledge about legal status of rules and executive orders. It is difficult to believe that officers of such a status do not understand distinction between a statutory rule and executive order. It is also not believable that officers of such status do not understand that unless rules are amended, effect flowing therefrom, cannot be deemed altered by virtue of executive order(s). Their consistent theme song that steps for amending rules have been taken and it is in pipeline, fortifies belief of this court that officers understand the true legal position but for the reasons best known to them, and in the zeal of justifying their act, which is not consistent, either to the judgment of this court or even to the order dated 17.06.2009 issued by State Government with respect to appointment of petitioner on Group 'C' post, they have been reiterating that the post of 'Tracer', as per executive orders issued now, has been upgraded though all the subsequent events can neither improve their case nor may result in change of legal consequences otherwise flowing from above unless Rules amended.
29. Now coming to second issue, I have no manner of doubt that there was a clear order of absorption of petitioner on a Group 'C' post. The judgment of this Court having attained finality, respondents finding no other way, attempted to comply the same inasmuch as State Government issued a general order in which name of petitioner was mentioned and it was stated very clearly that he shall be absorbed on a Group 'C' post. Despite that, petitioner was appointed on a post, which was clearly a Group 'D' post. Even before this Court, it could not be explained by respondents that petitioner's appointment was not on a Group 'D' post on the date when it was made. The change in grade pay of Tracer even by means of an executive order is subsequent thereto and that too prospectively as is evident from pay fixation order passed on 20.07.2013.
30. In totality of above discussion and circumstances, I have no manner of doubt and hesitation that petitioner was neither appointed on Group 'C' post nor the judgment of this Court, which has attained finality and as per undertaking given by Government before Apex Court, was complied. It is really disturbing and surprising that respondents have shown a consistent adamant attitude and audacity, not only to defy judgment of this Court, attained finality upto Apex Court, but also the undertaking recorded by Apex Court vide order dated 15.10.2010, while disposing of contempt petition that they have complied the judgment by issuing appointment letter that petitioner shall be appointed on Group 'C' post but, in effect, he was actually appointed on a Group 'D' post. For this conduct, in my view, the respondents are liable not only to be castigated and condemned but also to be saddled with heavy cost, compensatory in nature to petitioner, for harassing and forcing an avoidable second round of litigation.
31. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint petitioner on Group 'C' post with all attending benefits in terms of judgment of this Court as well as Apex Court. The monetary benefits admissible to petitioner including arrears of salary shall be determined and paid within three months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the entire amount of arrears, at the rate of 10%, from the date of filing of this petition till actual payment is made. His retiral benefits, if any, shall also be redetermined accordingly and shall be paid without any further delay. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-. At the first instance the cost shall be paid by respondent no. 1 but it shall have the liberty to recover the aforesaid amount of cost from the concerned Principal Secretary, Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, who is/are found responsible for bringing in this situation after making such inquiry as provided in law.
Order Date :-09.10.2013
AK
