Allowed

Prem Shankar Kanth v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence and Ors.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024WRIA/15847/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim for a revised salary scale. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision considering a State Government order mandating a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 for all Storekeeper posts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order within eight weeks.

Prem Shankar Kanth Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30806

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15847 of 2018 Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Kanth Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra,Anjani Kumar Srivastava,Ghanshyam Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents.

¶6

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 passed by opposite party no. 3; in the interest of justice.

¶8

(ii) To, issue a writ order a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties that the petitioner may be given the same salary for the post of which he is working since appointment, on the principle of equal pay for equal work i.e pay scale of Rs. 40006000 (Grade Pay Rs. 2800)

¶9

(iii) To, issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the difference of salary as arrear to the petitioner."

¶10

The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance to the advertisement that had been issued by the respondents, the petitioner had applied and was appointed as Storekeeper in the Central Civil Defence Training Institute, Lucknow in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- vide appointment order dated 10.07.2003, a copy of which is part of annexure 3 to the writ petition and was confirmed vide order dated 21.03.2007, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition on the post of Storekeeper in pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590.

¶11

The contention is that service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Defence (Clerical Cadre) Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1982") of which Rule, 4 of the Rules, 1982 indicates about the cadre as per appendix-A and Rule, 5 of the Rules, 1982 indicates that all the source of recruitment would be as per appendix-B.

¶12

As per appendix-A, there are three temporary posts of Storekeeper in the Civil Defence Training Institute in which the petitioner had been appointed and as per appendix-B, the pay scale of Storekeeper has been indicated as Rs. 200-320/- of which the replacement pay scale is Rs. 3050-4590/- in which the petitioner had been appointed.

¶13

Placing reliance on the recommendations dated 24.06.2005, a copy of which is annexure 12 to the writ petition, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a recommendation was made that in those departments where the posts of Storekeeper are less, the Storekeeper should be granted a first promotional pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and the second promotional pay scale

¶14

of Rs. 4500-7000/-. Subsequent thereto, an order has been issued by the Government dated 02.03.2006, a copy of which is annexure 13 to the writ petition per which in paragraph 6 it was indicated that all departments in the State which carry the post of Storekeeper are now to carry the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-.

¶15

The petitioner claiming the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- in terms of the recommendation dated 24.06.2005 staked his claim by filing a claim petition before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") which was decided vide order dated 18.09.2017, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition whereby the learned Tribunal has required the respondents to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- taking into consideration the recommendation dated 24.06.2005.

¶16

In pursuance thereof, the claim of the petitioner for grant of the said pay scale has been rejected vide order impugned dated 26.03.2018 on the ground that as per the recommendations of the Government dated 24.06.2005, the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- can only be granted as a first promotional pay scale or on the basis of first promotion and thus the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- has not been acceded to. Being aggrieved with the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶17

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once there is a specific recommendation dated 24.06.2005 followed by the order dated 02.03.2006 per which all the posts of Storekeeper are now to carry the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- consequently, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner as not feasible for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- contending that as per the recommendation dated 24.06.2005, the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- would only be for the purpose of grant of the first promotional pay scale is clearly misconceived and not countenanced in the eyes of law more particularly when the order dated 02.03.2006 still stands good as of date.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit more particularly paragraphs 9, 11 & 14 of the counter affidavit argues that the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with grade of Rs. 2800/- is only the first promotional pay scale and the petitioner would not be entitled for same as his appointment has been made in the pay scale of Rs. 30504590/-. It is also contended that in the seniority list which has been maintained for the clerical cadre, the name of the petitioner finds placed at Serial No. 47 and consequently, there cannot be any occasion for grant of said pay scale to the petitioner more particularly when the persons senior in the said list have not been granted the said pay scale.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records it emerges that the petitioner was appointed as a Storekeeper in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and has also been confirmed on the said post. As per the Rules, 1982, the post of Storekeeper is a cadre post though it has only been indicated as a temporary post. Initially, a

¶20

recommendation was made vide recommendation dated 24.06.2005 for grant of first promotional pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and a second promotional pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- to the Storekeepers. This has been followed by the order dated 02.03.2006 which categorically provides in paragraph 6 that with respect to all Storekeepers working in various departments of the State Government, their pay scale would be Rs. 4000-6000/-. The claim of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale as was directed to be considered by the learned Tribunal has been rejected vide order impugned dated 26.03.2018 on the ground that the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- is only the first promotional pay scale/ to be made available on the basis of promotion but the entire order does not indicate that any cognizance has been given to the order dated 02.03.2006 per which it has specifically been provided that all posts of Storekeepers in the State are now to carry the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-/.

¶21

No doubt in the order impugned dated 23.03.2018, in paragraph 7, a reference of an order dated 23.03.2018 has been given but the same is only a repetition of what has been indicated by the respondents while filing a counter affidavit more particularly in paragraphs 9, 11 & 14 of the counter affidavit which, as already indicated above would have no relevance more particularly considering the order dated 02.03.2006 per which all posts of Storekeeper in the State working in various departments are to carry the pay scale of Rs. 40006000/-.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 26.03.2018, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order on the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 keeping in view the discussion made above.

¶23

Let such an order be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Pachhere/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Shankar Kanth v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Shankar Kanth v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence and Ors.

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

Dharamveer Singh Rathor Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply and 2 Others

Mira Pushdha @ Mira Devi Pushdha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikash/Pustahar Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Development Lko.

Harshit Vaish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shanti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. and Others