Dismissed

Nirmal Prakash and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2020WRIA/5228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding pay protection, the court held that teachers who voluntarily accepted demotion to a lower grade pay to secure a transfer to a chosen district are not entitled to the higher grade pay. The court applied settled law to dismiss the petition as the petitioners could not claim dual advantage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction to the Superintendent for implementation; no grant of Grade-pay protection.

Nirmal Prakash and 7 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5228 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nirmal Prakash And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Neeraj Shukla, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

Petitioners have filed this petition claiming therein that petitioners were earlier working in District-Lalitpur. On 27.05.2013, State Government issued a transfer policy for transferring the teachers of the Institutions run by Basic Shiksha Parishad in pursuance of the transfer policy dated 27.05.2013. Petitioner were transferred to District- Banda vide order dated 11.07.2013. It is petitioners’ contention that they were informed by the District Basic Education Officer, Banda that the batchmates of the petitioners functioning in the District-Batchmates at that time were not promoted and, therefore, petitioners have to go to their districts from where they were transferred or they will have to work on a demoted post as an Assistant Teacher available at that time in district-Banda. Petitioners in para-10 of the writ petition has mentioned that they were left with no other option but to approach their district i.e. Lalitpur for the required order as per the direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Banda. Petitioners’ contention is that since transfer has been made in terms of the policy, therefore his Grade-pay could not have been reduced from Rs.4600 to Rs.4200. Petitioners are entitled to pay protection.

¶6

In support of this contention, petitioners have placed reliance on the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in Writ-A

¶7

No.25804 of 2018 and order dated 08.08.2019 passed inn Writ-A No.14899 of 2019 and has sought a relief that they be paid salary with Grade-pay of Rs.4600 as they were getting before their transfer to District-Banda.

¶8

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that case of the petitioners is different from what has been canvassed by the petitioners and petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

¶9

It is submitted that as per the transfer policy dated 27.05.2013 as contained in Annexure-3, there is a specific provision that persons seeking transfer will be transferred in the desired district only when in the concerned district where a person is seeking transfer, persons of his batch are working on the equal post. It is submitted that admittedly in District-Banda where petitioners sought transferred, their batcmates were not promoted to the Grade-pay of Rs.4600 and petitioner was given an option to either revert back to the district from where, they were transferred i.e. district-Lalitpur or in the alternative except the position as were obtaining in relation to their batch-mates.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel submits that with a view to enjoy his transfer to District-Banda, petitioners had gone back to district-Lalitpur, got himself reverted in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200 as is apparent from Annexure-10, which is a Last Pay Certificate issued by Block Education Officer, Lalitpur and thereafter joined at Banda in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200.

¶11

In view of such facts, now at this distance of time it is not open to the petitioners to claim relief and these facts have not been appreciated or were not brought to the notice of the co-

¶12

¶13

ordinate bench when orders were passed in Writ-A No.25804 of 2018 and Writ-A No.14899 of 2019.

¶14

At this stage, Sri Shukla submits that under similar facts and circumstances, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Council, Allahabad has passed orders and has allowed pay protection. He has drawn attention of this court to order no. Basic Shiksha Parishad/5468/2018-19 dated 23.07.2018, relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶15

“;kphx.kksa }kjk izLrqr izR;ksosnu ,ao vki }kjk izLrqr vk[;k ds voyksduksijkUr ;g rF; izdk’k esa vk;k fd ;kphx.kksa dk vUrtZuinh; LFkkukUrj.k izns’k ds fofHkUu tuinksa ls tuin tkSuiqj ds fy, ifj"kn ds fofHkUu vkns’kksa }kjk fd;k x;kA pwafd ;kphx.kksa dh inksUufr vius dk;Zjr tuin esa gks pqdh Fkh vkSj ml cSp ds fu;qfDr f’k{kdksa dh tuin tkSuiqj esa inksUufr ugha gq;h Fkh] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kphx.kksa }kjk vius dk;Zjr tuinksa ls viuk inkour ysdj tuin tkSuiqj esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;kA ;kphx.kksa dk dFku gS fd budk osru ,y0ih0lh0 ds vk/kkj ij u fu/kkfjr djrs gq, inkuour in dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA tcfd c<+k gqvk osru fdlh Hkh n’kk esa de ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶16

mDr ds lEcU/k esa lwP; gS fd ;kphx.kksa dks Pay Protection dk ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA vr% ,y0ih0lh0 (vfUre osru izek.k i=) ds vk/kkj ij u;s tuin esa osru dk vkx.ku dj Pay Protection ds fu;eksa dk ikyu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

¶17

mDr ds lEcU/k esa vkidks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;kphx.kksa dks vfUre osru izek.k i= (,y0ih0lh0) ds vk/kkj ij osru vkWx.ku dj Pay Protection ds fu;eksa dk ikyu djrs gq, osru Hkqxrku djus dh dk;Zokgh dj ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dk vuqikyu lqfuf’pr djsaA"

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 has drawn attention to the Last Pay Certificate as contained in Annexure-10, relevant portion on which is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶19

" जि�ला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० बेजि�क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० शि�क्षा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० अधि�क शिक्ष ा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० री ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ललिलतपुरक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ेआदे��ं० 345 29.07.2013 दिदना बेसि क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश स ं ० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ो इनकी पदावन्नति प्राथमिक विद्यालयइनक शिक्षा अधिकार ी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० पदा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० वन्नधितप्रा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० थदि"क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० दिवद्या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ल लितपुर के आदेश सं० य "ें स०अ० के पद पर की गई। अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्व�० अ० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ेपदपरक शिक्षा अधिकार ी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० गई। अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्वअध्या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आ द ेश सं० पक शिक्ष ा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ो इनकी पदावन्नति प्राथमिक विद्यालयपदो इ न की पदावन्नति प्राथमिक विद्यालयधित�ेपूव+

¶20

¶21

क शिक्ष ा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० वेतनक्र" पे-बैण्ड 11010 ग्रेड 4200"० दिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं ० भत्ता बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० 670 परवेतनआहरिरतदिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० �ा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० येगा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० । अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्व"

¶22

Thus, it is evident that petitioners vide order dated 29.07.2013, petitioners were demoted and then their pay were fixed in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200. Thus, there is no question of any pay protection because once petitioners sought transfer in a district of their own choice and decided to forego his promotion in the district where they were functioning on account of the fact that their batchmates were not promoted in the district of their choice where they sought their transfer, therefore, in terms of the order dated 27.05.2013 Clause-6 which reads as follows: “6. स्था बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ना बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० न्तरण चाहने वाले अध्यापकों का उनके द्वाराचा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० हनेवा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ल लितपुर के आदेश सं० े अध्या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललित प ुर के आदेश सं० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ों का उनके द्वाराक शिक्ष ा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० उनक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० े द्वा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिका र ी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० वा बेसिक श िक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश स ं ० <त�नपद"ें स०अ० के पद पर की गई। अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्वक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ेवलउ�ी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० स्थिस्थधित"ें स०अ० के पद पर की गई। अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्वस्था बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ना बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० न्तरण चाहने वाले अध्यापकों का उनके द्वारादिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० �ा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० येगा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० �बदिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० उ��नपद"ें स०अ० के पद पर की गई। अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्व�म्बस्थिन्�तअध्या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललित प ुर के आदेश सं० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० ेबैचक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० े अध्या बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललित प ुर के आदेश सं० क शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० भी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० �"ा बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० नपदपरक शिक्ष ा अधिकारी ललितपुर के आदेश सं० य+रतहों का उनके द्वारा। अध्यापिका को पदोन्नति से पूर्व"

¶23

In view of the aforesaid clause, petitioners were not entitled to any pay protection because he had voluntarily foregone the promotion in the Grade-pay 4600 and opted for their demotion in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200 so that they could have been accommodated in the district of their own choice and also there is no challenge to the L.P.C. which contains a note regarding the motion.

¶24

Law in regard to protection of pay is well settled as has been laid down in case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India Vs. Farid Sattar as reported in (2000) 4 SCC 13 wherein, it has been held that where a person on his own violation sought transfer on certain terms and conditions accepted by him and the terms and conditions of unilateral transfer are very clear and there is no ambiguity in it. The terms and conditions provided that the respondent on transfer could be appointed to a post

¶25

¶26

which is lower to the post which he was occupying prior to his transfer in such a situation, the pay of the respondent had to be fixed with reference to the lower pay scale and not with reference to the pay drawn by him in the higher posts. In para-6, it has been specifically mentioned that under the terms and conditions of the transfer the pay which the respondent was drawing on the higher post was not required to be protected when he joined the lower post of accountant.

¶27

The facts of this case decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court are applicable in all force to the facts of the present case and once the petitioner himself had foregone promotion in the Gradepay to Rs.4600 and opted for his promotion in the Grade-pay of Rs.4200, he is estopped from claiming dual advantage of transfer to a district of his own choice and drawing of higher Grade-pay from which he was demoted in terms of the policy so to be accommodated in the district of his own choice.

¶28

Thus, the orders on which petitioners have placed reliance are of no relevance for the present and the principles of pay protection will not be applicable in the case of the petitioners because once they were demoted then they were not drawing the salary in the Grade-pay of Rs.4600.

¶29

Accordingly, petitioners have failed to make out a case for pay protection and, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2020 Ashutosh

¶30

Nirmal Prakash and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Prakash and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Ragini and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Kadir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others