Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Others vs Ram Chandar Verma And Anr. on 24 November, 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserve on: 4.10.2017
Delivered On 24.11.2017
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 8 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others
Respondent :- Ram Chandar Verma And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Saxena S.C.,Addl. C.S.C.,Vivek Shandilya
Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Dwivedi,Ajit Singh,Bheem Singh,Manoj Kumar Sharma,R.B.S. Rathaur
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 291 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secry., Irrigaton And Others
Respondent :- Malik Shakil Ahmad
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Rai, Addl. C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- M.K. Sharma
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for appellants in Special Appeal No.8 of 2012 and Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, appearing for respondents.
2. Special Appeal No.8 of 2012 preferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 21.04.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36816 of 2004 (Ram Chandra Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. And others). By impugned judgment, respondent-petitioners were allowed benefit of time pay scale in terms of Government Order dated 3.9.2001, by learned Single Judge.
3. Special Appeal No. 291 of 2012 has arisen from order dated 15.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40769 of 2010, allowing writ petition in terms of judgment and order dated 21.04.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36816 of 2004.
4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders dated 21.04.2008 (in Writ Petition No. 36816 of 2004) and 15.07.2010 (in Writ Petition No. 40769 of 2010), State of U.P. has come up in these appeals.
5. Since the controversy involved in both the Appeals are similar, hence they are heard together and being decided by this composite order.
6. As far as Special Appeal No. 8 of 2012 is concerned the relief prayed by petitioners in writ petition was for grant of benefit under Government order dated 3rd September 2001 which provided for second promotional pay-scale on completion of 24 years of service or on 1st March 2000 whichever is later.
7. According to respondent-petitioner herein they were initially appointed on 11 January 1973 and 11 August 1972 respectively as Junior Clerk. They were further promoted as Senior Clerk on 1st September, 1983 and 27 June 1989 respectively and thus they received first promotion in service and placed in higher pay-scale of Senior Clerks which was Rs.430-685, later revised to Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1st January, 1986.
8. The contention of petitioners in writ petition was that thereafter they did not receive any further promotional pay-scale. Hence they were entitled for promotional pay-scale under the Government Order (Supra).
9. Per contra, appellant has advanced arguments stating that as a matter of fact, both petitioners did receive second promotional pay-scale i.e. Rs.1350-2200 which was further revised to Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 1st January 1996. These facts regarding two separate benefits of two pay-scales which were admittedly promotional pay-scales have got unnoticed in the judgment of learned Single Judge though pressed by appellant-respondent before the Court.
10. For further clarification of issue we are quoting para 2(A) of Government Order dated 3 September 2001 which reads as under:
" (2) (d) & mi;qZDr Js.kh ds in/kkjd ftUgsa 24 वर्ष dh lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk rd lh/kh HkrhZ ds in ds lanHkZ esa nks izksUurh;@vxyk osrueku vFkok nks inksUufr;kWa vuqeU; ugha gqbZ gks] ijUrq ftUgsa ,d inksUufr izkIr gks pqdh gks vkSj os lh/kh HkrhZ ds in ij fu;fer gksa mudh 24वर्ष dh संतोषजनक lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk vFkok fnukad 01&03&2000 tks Hkh ckn esa gks] ls lh/kh HkrhZ ds in ds lanHkZ esa f}rh; [email protected] osrueku oS;fDrd :i ls vuqeU; djk fn;k tk;sA"
11. From the reading of paragraph 2A of Government Order it is very much clear that those employees who have not been given two promotions but have been awarded one promotion and regularized on a post of direct recruitment, they shall be entitled for second promotion/next promotional pay-scale on completion of 24 years of service or on 1.3.2000 whichever is later.
12. Para 3 of Government Order is of equal importance which reads as under:
" (3) 'kklukns'k fnukad 2 fnlEcj 2000 ds izLrj&4 (1) esa ykxw O;oLFkkuqlkj vxys osrueku dh vuqeU;rk ds ekeys esa osrueku :02750&4400 rFkk :04500&7000 ds fy, vxyk osrueku dze'k% :03200&4900 rFkk :0 5000&8000 ekuk tk;sxkA"
13. It is worth notice that para 3 of Government Order clearly provides that for pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000, next revised pay-scale will be Rs.5000-8000.
14. It is a not disputed fact and petitioners have not contested the issue that they had received first promotional pay-scale on promotion which was Rs.430-685 (revised on Rs.1200-2040) and thereafter received second promotional pay-scale of Rs.1350-2200 revised as Rs.4500-7000. Thus pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 is above one and next higher to Rs.4500-7000. Petitioners had already received two promotions/promotional pay-scales so they were certainly not entitled to any benefit of paragraph 2A read with para 3 of Government Order dated 3rd September 2001.
15. In view of above facts, we are convinced that claim set up by petitioners was misconceived. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 was further revised to Rs.4500-7000 and therefore, petitioners had received only one promotion is absolutely incorrect. These were separate pay-scales as discussed above, i.e. Rs.430-685 revised to Rs.1200-2040 and Rs.1350-2200 revised to Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 1986 and 1996, respectively. Thus it is absolutely clear that two promotional benefits were already awarded to petitioners.
16. Accordingly, both the Special Appeals are allowed. Judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 36816 of 2004 (Ram Chandra Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. And others) And Writ Petition No. 40769 of 2010 (Malik Shakil Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. And others) are hereby set aside and writ petitions are dismissed.
17. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 24.11.2017
S. Thakur
