Allahabad High Court
Ram Asre vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4593 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Asre
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Divyang Jan Sshaktikaran Vibhag Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambrish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1.Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel.
2. It is noticed that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the case of Ram Shankar Dwivedi and other Vs. State of U.P. and other, Writ A No. 718/2016 decided on 28.4.2022.
3. This Court has considered the facts placed by learned counsel for petitioner as well as the judgment of this Court dated 28.04.2022 and this Court is of the opinion that the said judgment is squarely covers the case of the petitioner.
4. In the case of Ram Shankar Dwivedi and other Vs. State of U.P. and other, Writ A No. 718/2016 following was observed by this Court:-
"As noted herein above, learned counsel is not pressing for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.10.2015, as, he submits that the claim admissible to the petitioners for payment of salary w.e.f. 01.01.2006, can be made and raised before the erstwhile employer i.e. Central Government and not their present employer i.e. State Government.
In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined the scope in the instant writ petition, only to the extent that past services rendered with the Central Government by the petitioners herein, from their date of initial appointment i.e. 1985 to 1990, as the case may be, until the date of absorption i.e. 18.04.2010, with the State Government be computed and counted towards pension/other retiral benefits, including, pay fixation and arrears of salary as per the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) issued by the Director, Handicapped Welfare Department, U.P. Lucknow, protecting the last pay drawn, in respect of one Sri Saroj Kumar Bajpai. The pleadings made in paragraph 31 of the writ petition has not been denied by the State- respondents.
In the counter affidavit, the State- respondents have taken a stand that the pay-scale admissible to the petitioners on the post of junior clerk is as per the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission, which has been made effective from the date of absorption and not from 01.01.2006, as admittedly, petitioners were not the employees of the State-Government prior to the date of absorption.
In so far as, counting of past services rendered by the petitioners in the Central Government and protection of the last pay drawn is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the State-respondents. He, therefore, submits that the claim of the petitioners would be considered by the competent authority as per Rules.
In view thereof, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of by passing the following orders:
(i) the respondents shall count the past services rendered by the petitioners under the Central Government towards pension and other post retiral dues;
(ii) the State-respondents are directed to protect the last drawn salary of the petitioners in the pay-scale granted to the petitioners from the date of their absorption;
(iii) petitioners are granted leave to approach appropriate department of the Central Government in respect of their claim for salary as per the Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and consequential relief, if any."
5. Learned Chief Standing counsel does not dispute that the case of the petitioner is squared covered by the aforesaid judgment.
6. Considering the fact that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the direction given by this Court in the case of Ram Shankar Dwivdi (Supra).
Order Date :- 26.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
