Writ-A petition seeking quashing of an order dated 18.02.2021 and refixation of pay scale for dressers on parity with beneficiaries of the Anil Kumar judgment. Court relied on its order in Radha case and directed opposite party no.2 to file a short counter affidavit within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6878 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh And 20 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Labour., Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayankar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
"(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 18.02.2021, passed by the opposite party No.2, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to refix the pay scale of the Petitioners by providing the benefit of judgment and order dated 20.4.2017, passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Anil Kumar vs State of UP, WP No 8571/1992(S/S), as well as order dated 07.03.2019, passed by the opposite party no. 2.
(III) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs 330-495 revised to Rs. 825-1200 alongwith corresponding revised pay scale for the post of untrained Dressers and Rs 400-615 revised to Rs.1200-2040 alongwith corresponding revised pay scale with arrears thereof for trained Dressers in accordance with Government Order dated 24.05.2024."
"1. Heard Shri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that he may be permitted to not press the prayer no.3.
3. The aforesaid prayer is accepted.
4. Let the prayer no. 3 be deleted during course of the day.
5. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed prayer nos. 1 and 2 which read as under:
" (I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to refix the pay scale of Trained Grade of the petitioners by providing benefits of judgment and order dated 20.04.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in case of "Sri Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others" having writ petition No.8571 (S/S) of 1992.
(II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party No.2 to refix the pay scale of the petitioners in the pay scale of 1200-2040 along with corresponding revised pay scale w.e.f dated 01.01.1986 in place of 400-615 meant for trained dresser of the department along with arrears thereof in accordance with G.O. dated 24.5.2024."
6. Since the pleadings are complete, therefore, learned counsel for the parties have requested to decide this writ petition at the admission stage.
7. Considering the aforesaid request, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the issue in question has already been set at rest finally and following the judgement and order dated 20.4.2017 passed by this Court in re: Anil Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A no. 8571 of 1992, the consequential orders have been passed in favour of those petitioners who are the petitioners in a petition of Anil Kumar (supra) and others.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that on the one hand, the petitioners of writ petition in re: Anil Kumar (supra) have got their pay scales revised/modified pursuant to the judgement and order dated 20.4.2017 as well as the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by the opposite party no.2 and they have been provided the arrears of salary and on the other hand, the said benefit has been denied to the petitioners and similarly placed employees, which is discriminatory and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, initially the judgement passed in re: Anil Kumar (supra) was complied in the year 2019 but when the same benefits were extended to other similarly placed employees, then the State Government took a decision on 15.3.2022 and withdrew the pay scale granted to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra). Resultant thereof, the petitioners were denied pay scale of 12002040 and their pay scale has been fixed as 975-1660. However, vide order dated 24.5.2024 (annexure-23), the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra) have been provided revised pay scale of 1200-2040 along with corresponding revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Though w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the pay scale was 400-615; w.e.f. 1.1.2006 the pay scale was 4000-6000 and w.e.f. 1.1.2016, the pay scale was 5200-20,200 with Grade Pay 2400.
10. In the aforesaid order dated 24.5.2024, it has been indicated categorically that the aforesaid benefit would be provided to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra) and there is no dispute on the point that the present petitioners are entitled for the same benefit, as has been provided to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra).
11. Learned counsel for the petitoners has reiterated that initially, the petitioners were denied on the ground that such benefit has been withdrawn from the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra) and now, the aforesaid benefit has admittedly been provided to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra), therefore, the same benefit may be provided to the present petitioners as well.
12. Shri Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. has drawn attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit, wherein he tried to explain as to how the petitioners may not be provided the same benefit, as has been provided to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra) but he could not dispute that the case of the petitioners is similar to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra) and earlier such benefit was denied to the petitioners on the ground that those benefits have been withdrawn from the writ petitioners of Anil Kumar (supra).
13. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity and also in view of the admitted fact that the case of the present petitioners is similar with the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra) and also in view of the fact that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 24.5.2024 (annexure-23) providing the admissible benefit to the petitioners in re: Anil Kumar (supra), therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to revise the pay scale of the petitioners by providing the benefit of the judgement and order dated 20.4.2017 passed in re: Anil Kumar (supra). The opposite party no.2 is also directed to re-fix the pay scale of the petitioners in the pay scale of 1200-2040 along with corresponding revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in place of 400-615 meant for trained dresser of the Department along with arrears thereof in accordance with the Government Order dated 24.5.2024 (annexure-23).
15. In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is allowed.
16. No order as to costs."
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 28.8.2024 RBS/-
Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether dressers similarly placed to the petitioners in Anil Kumar are entitled to the same revised pay scale benefit under the G.O. dated 24.05.2024?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radha and Another Vs. State of U.P. and AnotherRelied on¶3
judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.5271 of 2024, Radha and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Anil Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on
judgement and order dated 20.4.2017 passed in re: Anil Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A no. 8571 of 1992
Vijay Kumar Singh And 20 Others
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Labour., Lko.
Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour and Health Services, Kanpur (Opposite Party No.2)
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
