U.P. Mandi Parishad Karmchari ... vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12699 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

[Reserved]
 
In Chamber (Through Video Conferencing from Allahabad)
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7498 of 2014 
 
Petitioner :- U.P. Mandi Parishad Karmchari Sangh Through President Lko. And 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Agriculture Marketing And Ex
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Tripathi,Anuj Kumar,Jitendra Singh,Kshemendra Shukla 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,N.C.Mehrotra,Syed Shabab Haider Zaidi 
 
					
 
WITH
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 147 of 2012 
 
Petitioner :- Bansi Lal And Others 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Agriculture Marketing.& Ors. 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Roy,J.N.Misra 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,N.C.Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Jitendra Narain Mishra and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the Mandi Parishad, Sri N.C. Mehrotra and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. These are two petitions filed by the employees of Class III and Class IV of the U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as Mandi Parishad), raising a grievance that they were given the benefits as per the recommendations made by the State Government in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Pay Commissions but the benefits are not extended to them as per the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 but are extended w.e.f. 18.03.2011. Petitioners thus have prayed for quashing of orders dated 18.03.2011 and 13.07.2011 and further for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to implement the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission on the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and pay arrears from 01.01.2006 till 17.03.2011 as per the proposal of the Mandi Parishad dated 5.8.2010 and 28.3.2011.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Pay Committee (2008), in its report regarding self-reliant institutions/autonomous bodies which have ample resources to meet their additional expenditure, has recommended implementing the revised pay scales with effect from the same date such benefits are extended to the State Government employees. Since, Mandi Parishad meets out its entire expenditure including the payment of salary to its employees from its own fund in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, therefore recommendations of the Pay Committee (2008) can be extended to its employees too. Furthermore, the service conditions of the employees of the Mandi Parishad are governed by the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (Officers and Employees Establishment) Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Regulation of 1984).

Regulation 6(1) of the Regulation of 1984 was amended on 02.02.2010 to include that the pay scale of employees shall be such as it is recommended from time to time by the Pay Commission and approved by the State Government. The amended Regulation 6(1) is as follows:

"6. (1) The strength of the service and of each category of posts there and the scales of pay shall be such as may be determined by the board from time to time.

Provided that scales of pay shall be such as may be recommended from time to time by the pay commission and approved by the State Government."

He further submits that the recommendations of the Pay Committee (2008) with respect to autonomous bodies was accepted by the Cabinet vide its notification dated 07.02.2009. The notification dated 07.02.2009 included the name of Mandi Parishad among other autonomous statutory bodies which were to be extended the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, the State Government did not implement the same and instead passed an order dated 18.03.2011, which notionally extended the benefits of the 6th pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006, restricting the payment of actual benefits only from the issuance date of G.O. dated 18.03.2011 causing petitioners loss in arrears from 01.01.2006 to 17.03.2011 . He further adds that employees of the Mandi Parishad were extended the benefits of recommendations of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Pay Commissions from the same date as other State Government employees.

4. The challenge to the conditions placed by the Government orders is made on the ground that the same are discriminatory, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Employees of the State Government and other autonomous bodies are being paid benefits of the 6th Pay Commission from 01.01.2006 and therefore denying the same to employees of the Mandi Parishad is discriminatory. Petitioners have relied upon the judgments in case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 , Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Others Vs. G.S. Uppal and Others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 375, and Triloki Nath Tiwari And 40 Ors. Vs. The State Of U.P. Thru The Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Micro & Anr. W.P. No. 4986 (S/S) of 2013 decided by judgment and order dated 26.11.2018.

5. The counsel for petitioner states that the service conditions of the employees of the Mandi Parishad would be same as are applicable to the employees of the State Government under the Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable to the State Government servants so long as the same are not altered by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

6. He further submits that the entire controversy with regard to implementing the similar pay scales to the employees of corporate/autonomous bodies of the State Government as it exists for employees of the State Government is settled by the judgment of this court in Triloki Nath Tiwari (supra), The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:

"14....... The ground taken in the government orders cannot apply in the face of law settled by the Supreme Court. It is always open for the State Government, in case any of its company is not running in profits, to wind up the same, but it cannot keep the employees of its company, even if it is loss making, which it wants to run, to be paid salaries which are inhuman. It is the duty of the State that all its employees, whether working directly or through any corporation, enterprise or otherwise under its control, are paid salary which has a rational to todays' living standards. Even otherwise, it is apparent that till 4th Pay Commission, salaries to the petitioners were being paid at par with the State employees and thus, in view of aforesaid two judgments in case of Kapila Hingorani and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (Supra), the respondents cannot escape from their liability to pay the benefits of the later Pay Commissions to the petitioners from the date they have been paid to the State employees."

Applicability of the aforesaid judgment could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel and counsels for the respondent-Corporation.

7. A perusal of the recommendations of the Pay Committee (2008) specially para 47, 53, and 62 establishes that employees of the Mandi Parishad are also entitled for the benefits of the revised pay from the same date as employees of other autonomous bodies as well as employees of the State Government. As per the Para 47 of the recommendation of the Pay Committee, autonomous bodies which are financially capable of bearing the burden of implementing the revised pay scale to all its employees are entitled for the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. In the para 53 of its recommendation, the Pay Committee has further recommended same allowances be made applicable to employees of autonomous bodies as is applicable to the employees of the State Government, it further recommends extending the parity in pay scale from the same date and on same rates to all other bodies where the pay scales are different from the state employees. In para 62 of the recommendations the pay committee has laid down certain conditions for pay scale parity of employees of autonomous bodies vis-à-vis State Government employees, viz. the governing body of the autonomous body endorses that it has necessary budgetary allocation to finance any such hike in pay scale of its employees. The Board of the Mandi Parishad in its resolution dated 05.08.2010 has admitted that it is capable of bearing additional expenditure resulting from implementing the revised pay scale from 01.01.2006 from its own fund without requiring any further grant or financial assistance from the State Government. Perusal of the order dated 11.11.2010 also reveals that Mandi Parishad is not a loss making unit but has a huge surplus of funds as the State Government has ordered redirecting Rs. 8146.00 Lakhs from Mandi Parishad funds to be used as financial assistance to Agricultural and Technical University at Kanpur, Faizabad, Meerut, the Allahabad Agricultural Institute and, U.P. Agriculture Research Council, Gomti Nagar Lucknow for compensating the expenditure resulting from implementing pay scales as per the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in these bodies.

8. Only administrative orders are issued by the respondents fixing a different date for giving benefit of the 6th Pay Commission, and there is no alteration made with regard to the service conditions of the petitioners viz-a-viz the employees of the State Government. Merely by office orders change in the service conditions cannot be made. It is not disputed that benefits of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. the date it is given to the State Government employees are already extended to the employees of the Mandi Parishad by the Board through its resolution dated 05.08.2010 as per Regulation 6 of the Regulation of 1984 and, therefore, the said benefits are to be implemented for the petitioners also from the same date as are implemented to the State Government employees.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 18.03.2011 and 13.07.2011 are hereby set aside and respondents are directed to pay the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The payments shall be given within the period of six months.

10. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions are allowed.

Order Date :- 13.09.2022

Rajneesh JR-PS)/Arjun

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)