Amita Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41444

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1325 of 2023 Petitioner :- Amita Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶6

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.12.2022 whereby petitioner's claim for enhanced pay-scale in accordance with recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 has been rejected.

¶7

It has been submitted that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the subject of music in the Government Ashram Paddhati Higher Secondary School vide order dated 08.07.1999. The State Government sought to implement the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission in the Educational Department with effect 01.01.1996 but the said benefit was denied to petitioner and similarly placed other Teachers leading to filing of writ petition whereafter State Government vide order dated 28.10.2004 granted the said benefits but with prospective effect. It has been submitted that the cut off date of 28.10.2004 is highly arbitrary not only on the ground that it does not have any rational basis with the object sought to be achieved and that various other similarly situated persons who had filed Writ Petition No.7977 (SS) of 2003; Kumari Chhaya Seth & Ors versus State of U.P. & Ors have already been provided such benefit with effect from 01.01.1996 and therefore petitioner is being discriminated against.

¶8

Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner in the light of counter affidavit and impugned order. It has been submitted that the aforesaid benefit was granted to other similarly situated Teacher with effect from 01.01.1996 only in terms of judgment

¶9

and order dated 13.04.2018 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.7977 of 2003 and since petitioner was not a party in the said petition, she is not entitled for the said benefit.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that benefit as sought by petitioner for implementation of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 has been denied while admitting that said benefit has been provided to similarly situated Teachers who were party in the Writ Petition No.7977 (SS) of 2003. The only ground for excluding petitioner from the aforesaid benefit is that she was not a party to the said petition. It is evident from the impugned order as well as from the counter affidavit except for the said aspect, it has been admitted that petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioner of the aforesaid writ petition. It is also evident that the aforesaid aspect has been considered not only in the case of Kumari Chhaya Seth (supra) but also in the case of Ram Mohan & Ors. versus Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Social Welfare Department and Ors. , Writ A No.32885 of 2011 allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2016. The aforesaid judgment clearly enunciates that the revised pay-scale in pursuance of 5th Pay Commission Report has been implemented in the Education Department with effect form 01.01.1996 and therefore grant of such revised pay-scale to teachers employed in the Ashram Paddhati School with effect from 28.10.2004 is arbitrary.

¶11

In the considered opinion of this Court, a ground taken by opposite parties to deny the aforesaid benefit is clearly arbitrary once it is admitted that petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioner's in the case of Kumari Chhaya Seth (supra). The mere fact that petitioner was not a party to the aforesaid petition cannot be a ground to deny benefits as accrued to petitioner of the aforesaid writ petition simply on the ground that she was not a party to the proceedings.

¶12

In view thereof, the impugned order dated

¶13

09.12.2022 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Bapu Bhawan, Lucknow to ensure benefit of revised pay-scale to petitioner in terms of 5th Pay Commission Report with effect from 01.01.1996. Actual benefit thereof including arrears of salary and other emoluments shall be made available to petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before concerned authority.

¶14

Consequently, petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Subodh/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amita Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amreek Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Santlal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Bahadur Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Savita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Dilip Saxena and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. General Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Puneet Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy/ Prin Secy Finance Civil Sectt Lko and 7 Others