Ram Dhari Singh vs State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy Deptt. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1267 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11816 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Dhari Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy Deptt. Revenue & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

The facts are not in dispute and the question revolves only around the interrelation of the G.O dated 30.6.1993, therefore, there is no need to call for counter affidavit. 

By a common order dated 29.1.2016, the claim of the petitioner along with Kamta Prasad and Nagendra Srivastava was considered for grant of second promotional pay scale w.e.f 14.10.2000, but considering a lone adverse entry against the petitioner, his claim was denied w.e.f. the said date instead it was granted w.e.f. 14.10.2005, thus his claim was denied in view of the aforesaid adverse entry.

The contention of the petitioner herein is that as per the G.O dated 30.6.1993though the petitioner may not have been entitled to grant of second promotional pay scale on account of the adverse entry dated 27.9.2000 when it became due that is on 1.2.2001, but on expiry of five years the matter had to be reconsidered in the light of the provisions contained in the G.O dated 30.6.1993 which applies to the assessment of satisfactory services in matters of grants of time scale / promotional pay scale / financial up-gradation, as, under clause-2 (SA) it is provided that if during the period, of which the records are considered for grant of the aforesaid benefit, any censure is existing and from the date of the incident, which is the basis for such entry, in the period of five years following it, there is no other adverse entry or punishment then such entry would be ignored while assessing the suitability of the candidate for grant of benefit aforesaid.

A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Government Order dated 30.6.1993 which applies to Government Servants such as the petitioner, it is borne out that in view of para-2 (SA) an entry, as aforesaid, has to be ignored while assessing the suitability of a candidate which obviously has to be done after the expiry of period of five years, therefore, even if, the petitioner was not entitled to the second promotional pay scale prior to expiry of the period of five years, he would be entitled to the said benefit after expiry of such period and w.e.f 1.2.2001. Any other construction of the Government Order would not be reasonable. The intent therein appears to be that if petitioner is visited by any other adverse entry or punishment then he would not be entitled to promotional pay scale w.e.f the due date but, if it is not so, then he would be so entitled. Thus, what the G.O says is that grant of such benefit would be put on hold for a period of five years, to see the conduct of the employee during this period and based thereon a decision shall be taken subsequently, but, with effect from the due date, in the manner stated hereinabove. Furthermore, the Court finds that one of the persons Kamta Prasad had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 26903 (S/S) of 2016 which was disposed of on 10.11.2016 taking a similar view of the matter though not in so many words and based thereon, the benefit has been granted to him with effect from the due date.

In view of the above the impugned order dated 29.1.2016, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to second promotional pay scale as aforesaid w.e.f 1.2.2001 with all consequential benefits of re-fixation of pay, pension etc., and arrears thereof.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 26.5.2017

Haseen U.