Allahabad High Court
Brij Nath Chawhan And 19 Ors. vs State Of U.P.& 2 Ors. on 6 December, 2018
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38594 of 2013
Petitioner :- Brij Nath Chawhan And 19 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2797 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Singh Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2215 of 2015
Petitioner :- Chandrahas Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32783 of 2017
Petitioner :- Niranjan Dubey And 15 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22669 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ram Janam Prasad P.N.O. No. 890660012
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22673 of 2015
Petitioner :- Chotey Lal P.N.O. No. 890680290 And 17 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38918 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh P.N.O.No.890770061 And 13 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38596 of 2013
Petitioner :- Krisna Nand Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
It is the case of the petitioners that they were all appointed in the Year 1989 as Constable in the P.A.C. They have received their first promotional scale on completion of 14 years of satisfactory service. The State Government has issued an order dated 02.12.2000 in pursuance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission/ Vetan Samiti 1997- 99 for giving of one increment after completion of 19 years of satisfactory service. Another Government Order was issued on 04.05.2010 for grant of Assured Career Progression to State Government employees.
It is the case of the petitioners that since they were appointed in 1989, they have completed 19 years of service on 30.11.2008 and are entitled to get one increment according to the old scheme, i.e., scheme formulated by the Government Order dated 02.12.2000. When they were not given their due increment the petitioners filed a representation and then a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 23132 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court on 25.04.2013 with a direction to the respondents to decide their representation by a reasoned and speaking order.
Now by the impugned order dated 19.03.2013, the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Head Quarter Allahabad has rejected their claim for grant of one additional increment after completion of 19 years satisfactory service.
It has been submitted that the petitioners case is fully covered by the judgment and order dated 24.09.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 of Ghanshyam Tiwari and others vs State of U.P. and others which was decided on 07.09.2012 and the perusal of order dated 07.09.2012 would show that it has been passed on the basis of judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006 on 08.04.2009.
The judgment rendered in writ petition No. 24910 of 2006 Constable 88 C.P. Lal Babu Shukla and others vs. State of U.P. and others has been filed by the petitioner along with a supplementary affidavit filed in this writ petition on 23 July, 2013.
I have carefully gone through the judgments rendered in Lal Babu Shukla (supra) and in Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) wherein question was whether the period spent by the petitioners while undergoing the training prior to their appointment, could be counted for the purpose of increment and other benefits.
This Court on considering the Circular dated 8th November, 1965 issued by the U.P. Police Head quarters, had observed that training period can be counted not only for pension and post retiral benefits but also other benefits of service. Clause (ii) of the said Circular only prohibits grant of increment during the training period, as during training period the recruits are given a fixed pay, but it has also been mentioned that they would draw their usual increments when they are absorbed as Constables in regular pay scale.
It has been submitted that judgment rendered in Lal Babu Shukla (supra) and Ghanshyam Tiwari (supra) were followed in writ petition (bearing Writ Petition No. 48601 of 2015) filed by one Virendra Kumar decided on 26.05.2016. Special appeal was filed against the said judgment by the State of U.P., which special appeal has been disposed of by a Division Bench on 07.09.2016.
The Division Bench observed that learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 26.05.2016, did not contemplate extending the benefit of counting the training period of the petitioners twice. It has clarified the judgment to the extent as requested by the State appellants, who argued that the training period in the case of the writ petitioners had already been taken into consideration for grant of one additional increment and therefore, question of counting the said training period once again for the purpose of granting one Additional increment did not arise.
The SLP filed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2016 in Special Appeal Defective No. 538 of 2016, namely SLP (C) No. 6316 of 2017 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 03.04.2017.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 1208 of 2014 Vimlesh Rai and 19 others vs State of U.P. and 3 others decided on 29.03.2016 placing reliance upon judgment rendered in Ghanshyam Tiwari's caese (supra).
The state respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied the judgment rendered by this Court in Lal Babu Shukla and Ghanshyam Tiwari and even Vimlesh Rai.
I find from the pleadings in the counter affidavit that the case set up by the State respondents is only to the effect that the earlier scheme of grant of increments on completion of 10 years, 19 years, and 24 years of service has been done away with altogether after the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were implemented. Now, there is a different scheme that is known as Assured Career Progression (ACP) by which three ACP's are granted on completion of 10 years , 16 years and 24 years of service. The respondents have referred to the Government order dated 04.05.2010 and also the Government order dated 08.12.2008.
This Court is aware that the Government order dated 08.12.2008 and 04.05.2010 have been suspended by the Finance Department by the Government order dated 05.11.2014. The New Scheme, as is applicable by the Government order dated 5th November, 2014, shall be applicable to the petitioners and to all other State Government employees.
The respondents are directed to consider the case of grant of Assured Carrer Progression to the petitioners, if they satisfy the conditions mentioned in the latest government order, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before the authorities concerned.
All the writ petitions stand disposed of in the same terms.
Order Date :- 6.12.2018
sushma
