Allahabad High Court
Mithlesh Kumar Bhatta And 17 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 8
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21813 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mithlesh Kumar Bhatta And 17 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Nagar Vokas Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neel Kamal Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Neel Kamal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4.
2. Sri Mishra has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20324 (S/S) of 2020: Upendra Nath Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, submitting that this writ petition being identical with the writ petition of Upendra Nath Singh (supra) may be decided in terms of order dated 03.12.2020. For the brevity, the order dated 03.12.2020 is being reproduced herein below:
"Heard Smt. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and 4.
The petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to implement the provision of Government order dated 07.02.2009 and 27.02.2009 on the officers and employees of U.p. Jal Nigam i.e. a local authority and thereby give the immediate benefit of VI pay commission on the pay revision and pension revision w.e.f. 01.12.2008 along with payment of interest as per the prevailing bank rate.
(b). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to implement the provisions of Government order dated 12.11.2009 on the officers and employees of U.P. Jal Nigam i.e. a local authority and thereby requiring the Board of Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, to take a decision regarding payment of pay revision and pension revision for the period 01.01.2006 to 11.03.2010 as lump sum along with payment of interest as per the prevailing bank rate.
(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to implement the VI pay commission recommendations on the working officers and employees of U.P. Jal Nigam like the petitioners from 01.01.2006 and thereafter the arrears of pay revision from 01.01.2006 till the actual payment be directed to be released along with payment of interest as per prevailing bank rate within a reasonable time.
(d) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to make payment of arrears 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.
(e) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to implement the recommendations of VII pay commission on officers/employees of U.P. Jal Nigam from 01.01.2016 and thereafter arrears of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and also the pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the actual date of payment be directed to be released along with interest as per prevailing market rate within a reasonable time."
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam (hereinafter referred to as, the Nigam) and are entitled for the benefit of sixth pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as is being provided to the State Government employees.
It is further contended that the Nigam has two sets of employees, where one belongs to the Nigam and other is the employees of erstwhile L.S.G.D. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti & others reported in 2013 3 UPLBEC 2125 has held that employees of erstwhile L.S.G.D and the employees directly recruited by the Nigam are at par and entitled for the benefit of regulation 31 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulation, 1978 since learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the petitioners in the present petition were superannuated engineers of the Jal Nigam.
It is further contended that the employees of erstwhile L.S.G.D has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11991 (S/S) of 2017 ( Kamesh Srivastava & 5 others Vs. the State of U.P.) for providing the benefit of sixth pay commission. It has been allowed by this court vide its judgment and order dated 27.02.2020. A Special Appeal (Defective) No. 276 of 2020 has been preferred by the State Government against the said judgment, which has been dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 09.11.2020.
It is further contended that the petitioner are also entitled for the benefit of grant of sixth pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It has been granted to erstwhile L.S.G.D employees particularly after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand Chakrawarti (supra) in which, it has been held that erstwhile L.S.G.D. employees are at par with the employees directly appointed in the Nigam (the present petitioners).
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the case of the petitioners are identical to the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11991 (S/S) of 2017 and squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 except that the present petitioners are directly recruited employees of the Nigam.This however, cannot be a ground to discriminate against the petitioners for the purposes of payment of benefit of sixth pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
Since the point involved is short and squarely covered by the earlier decisions of this court as well as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is finally decided at this stage itself allowing the writ petition with direction to the respondents that petitioners shall also be given benefit as admissible to the petitioners by judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 11991 (S/S) of 2017.
Writ petition is allowed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the Supplementary Affidavit dated 08.08.2019, wherein vide para 3 he has indicated the category of the petitioners in four groups. For the convenience para 3 of the supplementary affidavit is being reproduced herein below:
"3. That in para 5 of the instant Writ Petition, details of the Petitioners have been given however due to some typographical error, the respective placement of the Petitioner in the instant writ petition (i.e. their placement in the array of parties) has been wrongly transcribed. Therefore it is being clarified that the first group of the Petitioners i.e. those Junior Engineers who were initially appointed in the erstwhile Local Self Government Engineering Department (LSGED) i.e. a Department of the State Government comprise of Petitioner no. 2 to 4 (instead of Petitioner no. 1 to 3) as wrongly mentioned in Para 4 of the Writ Petition.
The Second group of the Petitioners i.e. those Junior Engineers who were initially appointed in U.P. Jal Nigam after 1975 and onwards and they retired as Assistant Engineer after 01.01.2006, comprise of Petitioner no. 1, 5 to 9 (instead of Petitioner no. 4 to 10) as wrongly mentioned in Para 5 of the Writ Petition.
The third group of the Petitioners i.e. those Junior Engineers who were initially appointed in U.P. Jal Nigam after 1975 and onwards and they are still working as Assistant Engineer after being promoted from the post of Junior Engineer, comprise of Petitioner no. 10-15 (instead of Petitioner no. 11 to 16) as wrongly mentioned in Para 5 of the Writ Petition.
The fourth group of the Petitioners i.e. those Junior Engineers who were appointed between 1.1.2006 to 13.3.2010 as Junior Engineers and are still working as Junior Engineer only, comprise of Petitioner no. 16 & 17 (instead of Petitioner no. 17 & 18) as wrongly mentioned in Para 5 of the Writ Petition."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards the Second Supplementary Affidavit dated 01.02.2021, wherein the petitioner has indicated that some of the petitioners are retired and some of working. For the convenience para 2 of the Second Supplementary Affidavit is being reproduced herein below:
"2. That the through the instant Writ Petition, the petitioners, some of whom are retired Assistant Engineers and others are working as Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers in U.P. Jal Nigam, have assailed the inaction of the respondent correctly implementing the recommendation of 6th pay commission in U.P. Jal Nigam with effect from 01.01.2006 as it has been implemented by the State Government in other similarly situated Local Authorities Local Bodies of the State."
5. Further, Learned counsel for the petitioner has enclosed the list of the affected Engineers. In subsequent affidavit dated 23.02.2021, whereby the petitioner has enclosed the receipt of Court Fees deposited for the affected persons and number of affected persons have been indicated as 2475, therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner he has deposited the complete Court Fees of all the members, who are affected i.e. 2475. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the benefit of order dated 03.12.2020 may be extended to only 2475 affected persons.
6. I have perused the content of writ petition and also the direction being issued by this Court on 03.12.2020 in re Upendra Nath Singh (supra) and I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition may be decided in terms of order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in re Uprendra Nath Singh (supra).
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in Upendra Nath Singh (supra).
8. No order as to costs.
9. It is made clear that the benefit of this order shall be given to the only affected persons, who have deposited the court fee.
Order Date :- 10.3.2021
Arvind
