Allahabad High Court
Awadesh Pratap Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34822
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3573 of 2023
Petitioner :- Awadesh Pratap Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education And Research And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyanshu Ojha the counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.01.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner for dearness allowance, as was allowed vide judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.161 of 2017 and Special Appeal Defective No.168 of 2017, has been rejected solely on the ground that both the petitioners were disengaged on 31.12.2016 and 31.01.2017 respectively when they attained the age of 60 years.
3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents had denied the benefits of dearness allowance which led to the filing of a Writ Petition No.4677 (SS) of 2000 which was ultimately decided on 16.04.2002. As the court while deciding the Writ Petition No.4677 (SS) of 2000 did not grant the benefits of dearness allowance, a Special Appeal Defective No.10 of 2014 was filed, which was allowed vide judgment dated 10.01.2014. It is argued that against the said judgment, a Special Leave to Appeal No.5142 of 2016 was preferred before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed and a review application filed before the Apex Court also stood dismissed. It is admitted that the petitioners herein were not the appellants in Special Appeal Defective No.10 of 2014, as such, the petitioners preferred a Special Appeal Defective No.161 of 2017, which came to be allowed on 19.07.2018 wherein the following directions were issued:
"Further from the facts narrated above and duly verified from record and not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents-University, we have no hesitation in allowing these appeals also in terms of the judgment dated 10.1.2014 and the present appellants would also be entitled to get the same benefits as has been extended by the judgment dated 10.1.2014."
4. It is argued that against the order dated 19.07.2018, the respondents preferred the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13301 of 2019 before the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 03.01.2022. He thus, argues that the directions contained in the appeal filed by the petitioners and as recorded above, have attained finality and thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have provided the benefits of dearness allowance along with the minimum pay-scale, as has been provided to the appellants of Special Appeal Defective No.10 of 2014.
5. He argues that the reasoning recorded in the impugned order that the petitioners were disengaged after attaining the age of sixty years in the year 2016 and 2017 is wholly arbitrary inasmuch as the Special Appeal Court after considering the fact and after hearing the parties have given clear directions and thus, it was not open to the respondents to have interpreted the directions given by this Court, which attained finality.
6. Sri Satyanshu Ojha, based upon the instructions, argues that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of dearness allowance as the petitioners were disengaged prior to 19.07.2018, the date on which the Special Appeal was decided, however, he informs that the appellants of Special Appeal Defective No.10 of 2014 were given the benefits of dearness allowance from the date of their judgment i.e. 10.01.2014 up to the date of their disengagement/regularization.
7. The first submission of the counsel for the respondents merits rejection solely for the reason that the directions given by the Special Appeal Court are clearly explicit and it was not open to the respondents to interpret it in a manner in which it has been done and is reflected in the impugned order, thus, the same is rejected.
8. As the respondents are themselves paid the benefits of dearness allowance to the appellants of Special Appeal Defective No.10 of 2014 from the date of the order i.e. 10.01.2014 till their disengagement/regularization, the same benefits shall be accorded to the petitioners also.
9. To further clarify, the petitioners herein shall be paid the benefits of dearness allowance from 10.01.2014 till the date of their superannuation which is 31.01.2017 in respect of petitioner no.1 and 31.12.2016 in respect of the petitioner no.2. The said amounts, as directed above, shall be positively paid within a period of two months from today. In case the amounts are not paid within two months, the petitioners would be entitled to interest @7% per annum.
10. The writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 18.5.2023
VNP/-
