Allahabad High Court
Balak Ram Maurya And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Secy. ... on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55248
Court No. - 8
Cass :- WRIT - A No. - 1836 of 2019
Petitioner :- Balak Ram Maurya And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl. Secy. Basic Education And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Sandeep Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms. Priyanka Verma, leared counsel holding brief of Shri Netram, learned counsel appearing for other respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2018 whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4420 (SS) of 2015, which was disposed off on 18.12.2017. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the persons junior to the petitioners have been promoted which has resulted in pay anomaly and anomaly in quantification of the other benefits. In short, the submission was that the persons junior to the petitioners were being paid salary and emoluments higher than the petitioners despite them being senior and having been appointed prior in time. On the basis of the said contentions, the writ petition was disposed off directing respondent no.3 to take a decision on the grievance raised by the petitioners. In response to the said direction, the present impugned order has been passed.
4. While passing the impugned order, respondent no.3 has noticed the contention of the petitioners, however, on the basis of a report furnished on 08.05.2018 to the effect that no pay anomaly was found, the representation was rejected.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the main contention of the petitioners that the persons who were junior to them and were promoted prior in point of time contrary to the seniority determination rules were getting higher pay-scale, was not dealt with and the impugned order has been passed solely placing reliance on the report dated 08.05.2018. The said exercise of adjudication was neither in consonance with the mandate of this Court in its judgment dated 18.12.2017 nor is the same in consonance with the seniority determination rules, thus, the same cannot sustain. As such, the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 is quashed.
6. Matter is remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders. While doing so, he shall specifically consider the contention of the petitioners that the persons junior to the petitioners were promoted prior in point of time contrary to the relevant seniority determination rules.
7. The fresh orders shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three months from today.
8. The writ petition is disposed off in above terms.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
nishant
