Allahabad High Court
Ram Pal Giri And Ors. vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 15765 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Pal Giri And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Urban Development And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. At the outset Ms. Savita Jain has drawn the attention of this Court towards one final order dated 26.7.2021 passed by this Court in Service Single No. 15686 of 2021 (Surendra Kumar Srivastava & others vs. State of U.P. & Others), therefore, this writ petition may be decided finally in terms of order dated 26.7.2021 extending the benefit of said order.
3. For the convenience the order dated 26.7.2021 passed in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) is reproduced herein below:-
"1. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned ACSC for respondent Nos.1&2 and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3&4.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as follows:
(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commanding and directing the Opp. Parties to pay the arrear of salary to the petitioners providing the actual benefit of the revised pay scale as per the recommendations of VI Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along with interest as per prevailing market rate.
(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opp. Parties to pay the arrear of salary to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 11.03.2010 along with interest as per prevailing market rate expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opp. Parties to make payment of arrear of pensionary benefits i.e. difference of pensionary benefits after revision of their pay from 01.01.2006 till the actual pay revision implemented w.e.f. 12.03.2010 in U.P. Jal Nigam along with payment of interest as per prevailing market rate.
(d) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.
(e) To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioners on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service from U.P. Jal Nigam, as per following chart:
Sr. No.
Name
Petitioner
Date of Appointment
Date of Retirement
Post
1.
Surendra Kumar Srivastava
26.5.1980
31.03.2018
Stenographer
2.
Suresh Chandra Sharma
01.07.1979
30.06.2016
Routine Grate Clerk
Km. Kusum Vaish
21.08.1979
31.08.2018
Routine Grade Clerk
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy in regard to grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was subject matter of consideration before this court in Service Single No.11991 of 2017 decided vide order dated 27.02.2020, which was subject matter of challenge in Special Appeal Defective No.276 of 2020 decided vide judgment and order dated 09.11.2020, whereby the judgment of the learned single judge was affirmed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the ratio of the judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
6. In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of in terms and directions contained in judgments and orders passed in Service Single No.11991 of 2017 decided vide order dated 27.02.2020 and Special Appeal Defective No.276 of 2020 decided vide judgment and order dated 09.11.2020."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Rishabh Kapoor has submitted that so far as the ratio of the judgments relied by the petitioner before this Court in Re:- Surendra Kumar Srivastava (Supra) is not disputed but he has submitted that the present petitioner being fence sitter approached the Court at the very belated stage after knowing the fact that so many matters have already been decided, therefore, the entitlement of the petitioners for the claims may be distinguished. On being confronted as to whether Surendra Kumar Srivastava was also a fence sitter, Sri Kapoor has submitted that Surendra Kumar Srivastava had also approached the Court after substantial delay, however, no such plea was taken before this Court in re:- Surendra Kumar Srivastava (Supra).
5. Be that as it may, since the identical issue has been decided by this Court in re:- Surendra Kumar Srivastava (Supra), therefore, I hereby dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the order dated 26.7.2021 passed by this Court and the benefit of the aforesaid order shall be extended to the present petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021
Vikas/-
