Vinod Kumar Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 21305 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 21305 ALL
Judgement Date : 9 August, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Vinod Kumar Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 August, 2023

Bench: Kshitij Shailendra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163864
 

 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13186 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey And Another
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Gauge Reader in the Work Charge Establishment of the Ground Water Department on 31.07.1981 whereas petitioner no. 2 was appointed on the same post in the same department on 17.02.1977. It is contended that later on services of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2000 and 2004.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have claimed a relief that services rendered by them in the Work Charge Establishment be counted for purposes of seniority and consequential benefits on promotional scale etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 520 of 2011 and it was decided on 09.10.2017. Relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench is quoted herein below:-

"3. Government order dated 02.12.2000 nowhere shows that service rendered in work-charge will not count for the purpose of employees concerned for grant of time-bound pay-scale/promotional pay-scale. The parity with Article 370 of Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR") which hold Work-charge Establishment not pensionable will not apply for the purpose of considering question whether such service will count for the purpose of considering employees concerned for benefit of Government order dated 02.12.2000 as no distinction in this regard has been recognized by said Government order. The purpose of granting promotional or time-bound scale is to avoid stagnation in the service of employees concerned. Therefore, there is no logic to deny work-charge service rendered by them for the purpose of considering benefit of Government order dated 02.12.2000."

4. Further reliance has been placed upon an order dated 03.04.2018 passed in Writ A No. 15308 of 2008. The said order is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the period of petitioners' service rendered in work charge establishment for the purpose of seniority.

The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as Gauge Reader in work charge establishment of Ground Water Department in the year 1980 and 1979 respectively. Petitioner no. 3 was initially appointed on 6th February, 1984 as Field Assistant in work charge establishment of Ground Water Department and they continued as such until their regularization on 15th May, 2004 and the order of regularization has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the name of the petitioners figure at serial Nos. 15, 18 and 55. The claim of the petitioners is that in spite of regularization from the work charge establishment to regular establishment, the period rendered as work charge employees has not been considered for the purpose of seniority and promotion. A Division Bench of this Court in bunch of Special Appeals leading one being Special Appeal No. 520 of 2011 vide order dated 9.10.2017 has clearly observed:-

The case of the petitioners is, therefore, squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench and, therefore, the petitioners are held entitled for getting benefit taking into account the work charge period of their service.

The concerned respondent is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and take appropriate decisions in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. "

5. Further reliance has been placed in another identical order dated 31.05.2022 passed in Writ A No. 8478 of 2022.

6. It is, therefore, contended that the controversy stands concluded in view of the Division Bench judgment quoted hereinabove and subsequent orders of this Court following the Division Bench Judgment.

7. The aforesaid order passed in Writ A No. 15308 of 2008 was assailed by the State by filing Special Appeal (Defective) No. 505 of 2020 which was dismissed on 07.09.2020 against which the State filed Special Leave to Appeal No. 413/2022 before the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 31.01.2022.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid position.

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that petitioners shall also to be entitled to same benefits as have been accorded under the aforesaid orders.

10. Necessary orders shall be passed by the concerned authorities within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them along with requisite applications.

Order Date :- 9.8.2023

Vipasha