Allowed

Shiv Mohan v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and O

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023WRIA/6680/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed the petitioner's writ petitions regarding salary scale and regularization. The Court held that the petitioner, working in a Class-IV post, must be paid the minimum of the revised 6th pay commission scale. It also quashed an order rejecting regularization and directed the Department to consider vacant posts for regular appointment and decide on arrears within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed. Order dated 23.1.2014 quashed. Petitioner to be paid minimum 6th pay commission scale; claim for regularization to be considered; decision on arrears and regularization require

Shiv Mohan Vs State of U.P. through Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47136

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6680 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shiv Mohan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. And O Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

with

¶5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3016 of 2002 Petitioner :- Shiv Mohan

¶6

Respondent :- District Rural Development Agency Raebareli Counsel for Petitioner :- S.B.Pandey,Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K.Katiyar,Sameer Kalia

¶7

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶8

The case is called out in the revised call.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶10

Facts and circumstances of both the petitions being similar in nature, thus, both the writ petitions are being decided by means of a common judgment and order.

¶11

By means of an order dated 23.1.2014, passed in WRIT - A No. - 6680 of 2014, the appointment of the petitioner was initially made in Class-IV post in District Rural Development Agency (for brevity, "D.R.D.A."), Raebareli on daily wage basis. He was attached to the residential office of the Chairman, D.R.D.A., Raebareli.

¶12

Vide order dated 15.10.1998, passed by the Chairman, D.R.D.A./ Collector, Raebareli, the petitioner was appointed on consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month on temporary basis. From 3.11.2000 to 31.5.2001, the petitioner was posted in the Census office, Raebareli on Class-IV post. During his posting at the residential office of the Chairman, D.R.D.A., Raebareli, the annual confidential entries were recorded by the Collector, Raebareli, which shows that the work was continuous and satisfactory.

¶13

Salary of the petitioner was stopped by the respondents, then the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2223 (S/S) of 2002 before this Court, in which, it was provided that if the petitioner has

¶14

worked, his salary shall be paid in accordance with law.

¶15

The petitioner made several representations before the respondents to regularize his service and fix his salary in the regular pay scale of Class-IV with all consequential benefits, but the respondents did not pay heed on the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, in which vide order dated 23.5.2002, following order was passed, operative portion is quoted below :-

¶16

"The petitioner claims parity of the interim order passed in W.P. Nos.996 (S/S) of 1996, 7827 (S/S) of 96 and 680 (S/S) of 1999. In view of the above, it is provided that in the meantime the petitioner shall be paid his wages on the basis of minimum of the pay scale admissible to the regular appointed Class IV employees working in the office of the D.R.D.A. Raebareli."

¶17

In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner is getting minimum pay scale admissible to the regularly appointed Class-IV employees working in the office of D.R.D.A., Raebareli. The claim of the petitioner for regular appointment has been rejected vide order dated 23.1.2014, holding that there are five posts sanctioned in the department for the appointment on regular basis and no post is vacant, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

¶18

In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed in WRIT - A No. - 6680 of 2014, it has been stated that Deshraj and Ram Sharan were working on regular basis and they have retired, therefore, two sanctioned posts are in existence in the department, wherein the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment can be considered at present.

¶19

The petitioner has been working under the respondents since November, 1990 and has filed WRIT - A No. - 3016 of 2002, claiming salary equal to other employees performing duties of Class-IV post, whereupon an interim order was granted on 23.5.2002 that minimum of the pay scale be given to him, ever since he is being given the minimum pay scale. The writ petition is pending before this Court and is heard alongwith the present petition. The petitioner is being paid minimum of the pay scale in pursuance to the order dated 23.5.2002 passed in WRIT - A No. - 3016 of 2002 and subsequent to the rejection of the regular appointment of the petitioner, challenge was made in WRIT - A No. - 6680 of 2014.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that the employees of the D.R.D.A., Raebareli have been given salary in 6th pay commission scale, but he has been paid minimum of the 5th pay

¶21

commission scale. The contention is that once the pay scale is revised, then the minimum of the revised pay scale should be given to the petitioner.

¶22

The contention appears to be correct as the order of the Court was to pay him minimum of the pay scales, which obviously mean pay scales revised from time to time and the order does not say minimum of the pay scale of 5th pay commission, in fact this was not the intention. Whatsoever the pay scale applicable to the post in question in the corporation, its minimum is to be paid, if pay scales are revised as per the 6th pay commission then insofar as it applies, its minimum is to be paid, therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be paid the minimum of the 6th pay commission pay scale. In regard to the order of cancellation of regular appointment of the petitioner at the relevant point of time, the impugned order passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment on 23.1.2017 on the ground that there are five sanctioned posts and no post is vacant in the department, in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has given the detail of existence of two vacancies due to retirement of Deshraj and Ram Sharan, which are lying vacant now, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered for regular appointment.

¶23

In view of the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed . The order dated 23.1.2014 is hereby quashed and direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment in view of the fact narrated in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit as well as consider the claim for the grant of salary of 6th pay commission or any other subsequent development made by issuing 7th pay commission accordingly by the Chief Development Officer/ Executive Director, D.R.D.A., Raebareli and a decision be taken in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

The question of payment of arrears of minimum of the pay scale remuneration from the date 6th pay commission or any other subsequent development made by issuing 7th pay commission was made applicable to the Agency shall also be considered and a decision accordingly be taken by the Executive Director within the said period inasmuch as the appointment on regular basis shall also be taken into consideration within the aforesaid period.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Gautam

¶26

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Mohan v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Mohan v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Labour and 2 Ors.

Mrs.Neelam Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P.and 3 Ors.

Hussain Haider Vs Aadarsh Kumar Goyal Pramukh Abhiyanta Tube Well Irrigation

Deepak Srivastava Vs National Insurance Comapany Ltd. Thru Chairman and 2 Ors.

Shiv Mohan Vs District Rural Development Agency Raebareli

Surendra Narain Misra Vs D.M. Sultanpur and 2 Ors.