State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Defence Lko. and 2 Others Vs Prem Shankar Kanth

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3384-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 633 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Defence Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Respondent :- Prem Shankar Kanth Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Misra

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. This intra-court appeal filed by the State has assailed the judgment/order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the writ court in Writ-A No.15847 of 2018 ( Prem Shankar Kanth vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) on the ground that the benefit of the payscale Rs.4000-6000 which has been accorded to the respondent is contrary to the hierarchy of posts as provided in Appendix-A of the relevant service rules. Moreover, it is argued that once the respondent was promoted as Store Superintendent Grade-II in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 by order dated 07.12.2022, he cannot be extended the benefit of the higher pay-scale unless he joins on the higher post. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary placing reliance upon the government order dated 02.03.2006 has argued that the pay-scale as per the hierarchy of posts of Store Keeper upon restructuring of the cadre of Store Keeper was set at variance since the date of

¶8

issuance of the government order, therefore, once the pay-scale of Store Keeper was prescribed as Rs.4000-6000, there is no reason as to why the said benefit may be denied to the respondent alongwith the benefit of grade pay.

¶9

It is not the case before us that any arrears have been claimed by the respondent herein from the date of enforcement of the government order.

¶10

We have considered the rival submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and it is gathered from paragraph-6 of the aforesaid government order that the restructuring of the cadre of Store Keepers was made by the state government in all the departments with specification of pay-scales against the respective posts. Admittedly, the respondent was initially appointed as Store keeper in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590. The pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 therefore became applicable to the respondent as a matter of course and more particularly when he was promoted to the higher post of Store Superintendent Grade-II in the same very pay-scale. The post of Store Superintendent Grade-II as a matter of fact is equivalent to the post of Store Keeper in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 but such an amendment of the rules has not been incorporated till date. The hierarchy of posts in the rules as per the government order dated 02.03.2006 ought to be prescribed as Assistant Store Keeper, Store

¶11

Keeper and Senior Store Keeper of which the respective pay-scales prescribed in the government order were set out as Rs.3050-4590, 4000-6000 and 4000-7000 respectively. Chapter 7 Rule 22 of the U.P.Civil Defence Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1982 applicable to the respondent reads as under-:

¶12

22-(1) ससववममवववभनशसवणययकसपदयपर चवहसममललक यव सथवनवपनरपमम हहयवअसथवयय आधवरपर, वनययकत वयवकययकवअनयमनयवसतनमवन ऐसवहहगवजजसवसरकवरदवरव समय-समयपरअवधवररतवकयवजवय। (2) इसवनयमववलयकस पवरमभकस समयपववतवसतनमवन पररवशष "ख" ममवदयसगयसहह।

¶13

The aforesaid Rule clearly implies that once the mandate of rules permits the state government to alter the pay-scale and cadre composition as per the government orders issued from time to time then there is no reason as to why the government order dated 02.03.2006 may not be read as a part and parcel of the statutory rules applicable to the respondent alongwith the benefit thereof.

¶14

It is in this backdrop that the writ court has allowed the payment of Rs.4000-6000 to the respondent while working on the post of Store keeper.

¶15

Having regard to the mandate of the government order as mentioned above and scrutinizing the judgement impugned in the light thereof, we are convinced that no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is called for against the judgment passed by the

¶16

writ court.

¶17

Thus the intra-court appeal filed by the State being bereft of any merit is accordingly rejected.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 15.1.2025

Shahnaz

'

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 633 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Defence Lko. And 2 Others

¶23

Respondent :- Prem Shankar Kanth

¶24

Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.

¶25

Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Misra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

This appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is delayed by 197 days. The appeal is filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit.

¶28

Reasons in detail have been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application to which there is no objection.

¶29

In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶30

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)

¶31

Order Date :- 15.1.2025/Shahnaz

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Defence Lko. and 2 Others v. Prem Shankar Kanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Defence Lko. and 2 Others v. Prem Shankar Kanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S New Star Brick Works (Erstwhile M/S Shiv Om Brick Works) Thru. Prop. Afsar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Forests, Environment and Climate Change and Ors.

Thagi Piditon Ki Awaz Trust Thru. Trustee Ramesh Singh Vs U.O.I. Thru. Finance Secy. Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. and 6 Ors.

Jai Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 6 Others

Saurabh Saxena vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill Development Entreneurship New Delhi and 5 Others

Srawan Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. and Ors.

Vijay Pratap Singh Vs Rajiv Kumar Mishra and 4 Others