Radhe Shyam Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11466 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6753 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Radhe Shyam Yadav And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"a. issue a writ order of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take into consideration the service period spent by the petitioners, while undergoing training as per Circular dated 08.11.1965 in the service period of the petitioners.

b. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to provide one additional increment after completion of the 19 years of service to the petitioners, according to the G.O. dated 02.12.2000.

c. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioners and provide one additional increment after completion of the 19 years of satisfactory service to the petitioners, in the light of Ghanshyam Tiwari case as well as Virendra Kumar case."

Controversy raised in the present petition has already been adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 44330 of 2012 (Ghanshyam Tiwari & others vs. State of U.P. & others) against which a special appeal and S.L.P. has already been rejected. Order dated 07.09.2012 passed in aforesaid writ petition reads as under:-

"The sole grievance raised of the petitioners in the present petition is as to whether the period spent on training prior to appointment as a Constable in the Police Department can be counted for granting them promotional pay scale.

I have heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

This issue was examined by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006 and the petition was allowed with the following observations:-

"Thus, for the reasons stated above, the respondents are not justified in not counting the period spent in training for the purposes of calculating 24 years of service for grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioners. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting second promotional pay scale."

Thus, for the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2009 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 24910 of 2006, this petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The respondents shall count the training period of the petitioners for the purposes of granting additional increment."

Following the order passed in the aforesaid matter, this writ petition is also disposed of with the direction that the petitioners' claim for grant of Additional increment shall be considered within a period of three months after taking into account the training period for the purposes of grant of such benefit.

Order Date :- 18.4.2023

Shaswat