Allahabad High Court
Omkar Singh And 14 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6208 of 2023
Petitioner :- Omkar Singh And 14 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Munendra Nath Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Akhilesh Tripathi, advocate holding brief of Shri M.N. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by respondent no.1, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P, Lucknow. By the said order, respondent no.1 has denied the claim of the petitioners for refixation of their salary.
3. Facts of the case are that a dispute arose with regard to salary fixation of the petitioners, as a consequence of promotion granted with retrospective effect. The said controversy was decided by this Court by order dated 21.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.27670 (S/S) of 2016; 'Chandra Prakash Yadav and 27 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Ors." The aforesaid order, short and concise, reads as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners herein have been granted notional promotion with retrospective effect consequent to the reversion of the incumbents of the promotional post who belongs to the reserved category in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1, however, the benefit of pay fixation and consequential salary has not been extended to them as yet. While notional promotion disentitles the promotee to actual salary from the date of such promotion, but, he is entitled to refixation of salary on notional basis with consequential current and future salary.
In view of the above, the opposite party no. 1 is directed to act upon the letters dated 15.07.2015 and 17.05.2016 in the light of the aforesaid and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted.
It is open for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
When the order passed in Writ Petition No.27670 (S/S) of 2016 was not being complied with a contempt petition was filed. To make the controversy short, the State Government took a decision on 01.12.2017 and held that the petitioners would be given promotion from the retrospective date, however, for the period between the date of notional promotion and the date of actual joining on the promoted posts, petitioners would not be entitled for any back wages. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.10.2021 the State Government had withdrawn its earlier order.
Being aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2021 a writ petition being Writ-A No.25137 of 2021 was filed on the grounds that since the State Government had taken a decision in compliance of a judgement of this Court, which stands till date, it was not open for the department to take a contrary stand and once a decision is given by this Court, unless it is challenged and modified, the State Government as well as the department both are bound to comply with the same, the Court had quashed the impugned order and allowed the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 10.01.2023.
The petitioners herein filed a representation to be decided in compliance of the order 21.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.27670 (S/S) of 2016; 'Chandra Prakash Yadav and 27 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Ors." which has been rejected by the respondent no.1 vide impugned order dated 03.07.2018, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the State Government had taken a decision in compliance of a judgment of this Court, which stands till date, it was not open for the department to take a contrary stand. He further submits that even otherwise, once a decision is given by this Court, unless the said judgment itself is challenged and modified, the State Government as well as the department both are bound to comply with the same.
It could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the judgment of this Court dated 21.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.27670 (S/S) of 2016 stands till date. Once, the said judgment stands and is not challenged either by the department or by the State Government, it was not open for the respondents to take a stand contrary to the judgment. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P, Lucknow has no power to pass an order contrary to the decision already taken by the State Government.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms.
The order dated 03.07.2018 passed by respondent no.1, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P, Lucknow is quashed.
The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted to the similarly situated petitioners of Writ Petition No.25137 of 2021 "Chandra Prakash Yadav and 26 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others."
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Ashutosh
