Allowed

Ram Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Development of Technical Education Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2025WRIA/2512/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotional pay scale; next promotional pay scale; next higher promotional pay scale; Workshop Instructor (Blacksmith); Workshop Superintendent; U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service Rules 1990; first amendment Rules 1998; notification dated 17.12.1998; U.P. Government Servant Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules 1994; Rule 4; seniority subject to rejection of unfit; seniority

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed: impugned order dated 30.01.2024 quashed by writ of Certiorari; benefits of promotional pay scale under order dated 27.01.2003 to continue; Opposite Party No.1 (Additional

Ram Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Development of Technical Education Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

Reserved

¶3

WRIT - A No. - 2512 of 2024

¶4

Ram Prakash Mishra

¶5

Versus		.....Peti	tioner(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Development Of Technical Education Lko. Others	And 4	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akshat Srivastav	Kumar, a	Sanjay	Kumar
WRIT - A No. - 4540 Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.	of 2025
Versus Ram Prakash Mishra		.....Peti	tioner(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dep Technical Education Govt. Of U.P., Lko A Others	tt. Of nd 5	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar	Kumar	Srivastava,	Akshat
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 7

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶9

Since both the petitions pertained to the same dispute, they have been adjudicated upon by the common judgment and order.

¶10

Writ petition Writ-A No. 2512 of 2024 has been filed challenging order dated 30.01.2024 whereby benefits of promotional pay scale granted to petitioner earlier in the year 2003 have been withdrawn on the pretext that

¶11

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶12

¶13

they were incorrectly granted. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to make payment of salary to petitioner alongwith consequential service benefits ignoring the impugned order has also been sought.

¶14

In writ petition Writ-A No. 4540 of 2025, petitioner has sought the consequential benefits of a direction to concerned authority to include pension, commutation of pension, leave encashment and gratuity, GIS after giving of one notional increment and making fixation of salary accordingly in the the Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100, Grade pay 7600/- (Pay Matrix Level-12, i.e. Basic Pay of Rs. 119300/-) and remaining 10% . Further prayer for a direction to concerned authority for payment of bonus for the academic session 2023-24 in view Government Order dated 23.10.2024 has also been sought.

¶15

Earlier on 25.07.2025, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶16

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶17

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.01.2024 and a direction for payment of salary to petitioner ignoring the said order.

¶18

3. It has been submitted that petitioner had initially been appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor (Blacksmith) on 14.05.1986.

¶19

4. Learned counsel has adverted to the U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service (first amendment) Rules, 1998 to submit that said Rules prescribe eligibility for promotion on the next higher post of Workshop Superintendent and adverted to category 13 to submit that said post prescribed 25% recruitment through promotion from such substantively appointed Workshop Instructors, who are in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 and had ITI Certificate or equivalent thereto as well as having completed 15 years of minimum services as Workshop Instructor.

¶20

5. It is submitted that petitioner fulfilled the aforesaid conditions but was not promoted.

¶21

6. He has thereafter adverted to Government order dated 02.12.2000 to submit that the said government order provided provisions for grant of

¶22

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶23

¶24

next promotional pay-scale, in case actual promotion was not made.

¶25

7. It is submitted that in such cases where the next promotional post was available, the pay-scale of the next promotional post was required to be granted as personal pay as indicated in clause-4 of the government order.

¶26

8. He has also adverted to U.P. Government Servant Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 to advert Rule 4 thereof to submit that recruitment by promotion on all the posts is to be on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit except for only three posts indicated therein.

¶27

9. It is therefore, submitted that since the post of Workshop Superintendent does not within purview of the excepted posts, criterion for promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent was necessarily required to be seniority subject to rejection of unfit and therefore, petitioner was required to be granted promotional pay-scale particularly the next promotional pay-scale.

¶28

10. It is submitted that aforesaid next promotional pay-scale was granted in the year 2003 and has now been cancelled by means of impugned order on the ground that it was incorrectly granted primarily on account of the fact that post of Workshop Superintendent was required to be filled up through recruitment on the basis of merit and not seniority.

¶29

11. It is also submitted that opposite parties while passing impugned order have incorrectly taken the post of Assistant Lecturer and Workshop Superintendent to be in parity but there is no basis indicated for such parity.

¶30

12. With regard to aforesaid, learned State Counsel prays for time to prepare with the case.

¶31

13. List this case on Monday i.e., 28.07.2025 at 2:15 p.m.

¶32

14. Interim order, if any, to continue till the next date of listing."

¶33

Elaborating upon his submissions advanced earlier, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that in terms of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000, it has been provided that the next promotional pay scale available to

¶34

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶35

¶36

petitioner would be of the next higher promotional post of Workshop Superintendent. The said scale was in fact granted to him by means of order dated 27.01.2003 specifically indicating that since the promotional post of Workshop Superintendent was required to be filled up by mode of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, merit obviously was not a criteria and therefore, the opposite parties have erred in withdrawing the earlier benefit granted on the ground that the said next promotional pay scale was for the post to be filled up through merit and not seniority.

¶37

Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed and in pursuance thereof, it is submitted that although the provisions of the Government Order dated 03.06.1989, 02.12.2000 and 20.08.2004 and in terms of U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1990 as amended in the year 1998 clearly prescribed that promotion to the post of Lecturer from Assistant Lecturers similar as from Workshop Instructor to Workshop Superintendent are based on seniority-cum-merit as well as qualification/higher qualifications/merit, the Assistant Lecturers can come within consideration of zone of promotion but the post of Lecturer is not the promotional post for Assistant Lecturers. Analogy of the aforesaid posts in parity with that of posts similar to petitioner has been drawn. It has been further submitted that just like the post of Assistant Lecturers, promotion to the post of Workshop Superintendent from that of Workshop Instructor is based on seniority-cum-merit but not all Workshop Instructors would be eligible for promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent. It is submitted that promotional post is one in which all the persons in order of seniority come within the consideration zone. He has also adverted to the service rules to submit that promotion to the post of Workshop Superintendent is required to be from such Workshop Instructor's who have completed 15 years of substantive service on the post of Workshop Instructor and therefore, there is no occasion to automatically grant the promotional pay scale after only 14 years of service as Workshop Instructor.

¶38

Learned State Counsel has also adverted to the fact that the aforesaid post of Workshop Superintendent which requires higher qualification is, therefore, post of merit due to which petitioner cannot be considered since post on which recruitment is required to be made on the basis of merit,

¶39

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶40

¶41

would not come within purview of the promotional pay scale post.

¶42

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the question arising for adjudication in the present writ petition would be whether promotional pay scale of the post of Workshop Superintendent would be available to a person who otherwise is eligible for promotion to the post of Workshop Superintendent from the post of Workshop Instructor?

¶43

The aspects of grant of promotional pay scale has been covered by the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 which in paragraph-1 (2) indicates the criteria for grant of promotional pay scale. Paragraph-5 thereof indicates conditions for grant of such pay scale and conjointly the aforesaid provisions clearly indicate the aspect that for purposes of grant of next promotional pay scale, in those cases where the next promotional post is available, the next higher scale of such promotional pay scale would be granted and in those cases where no promotional post is indicated in the department, the next higher pay scale shall be granted.

¶44

In the present case, it is evident that earlier the post of Workshop Superintendent and criteria for promotion was indicated in the service Rules of 1990 in category (xiv) where 25% of the posts were required to be filled by promotion through Commission on the basis of merit from amongst substantively appointed Instructors, Assistant Lecturers etc. The aforesaid rules were thereafter amended in the year 1998 vide notification dated 17.12.1998 whereby the amendment incorporated was ITI qualified Workshop Instructors to be promoted on the post of Workshop Superintendents which carried the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. The amendment also indicated that for purposes for eligibility for such promotion, the work person should have completed 15 years of substantive service as a Workshop Instructor.

¶45

It is the admitted case of parties that petitioner fulfilled the aforesaid criteria for promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent but was not so promoted.

¶46

Counter affidavit clearly admits the fact that promotion to the post of Workshop Superintendent was required to be made on the basis of seniority-

¶47

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶48

¶49

cum-merit.

¶50

However, the counter affidavit adverts to the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 as well as the U.P. Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 to submit that promotional pay scale is not available for those posts where recruitment is required to be made on the basis of merit.

¶51

A perusal of the Rules of 1994, specifically Rule 4 thereof clearly carved out an exception for criterion for recruitment by promotion on the post of Head of Department to post just one rank below the Heads of Department and in any service carrying the pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs.18,300/- or above and for such posts, the mode of promotion is merit. The Government Order dated 20.08.2004 is also on the same terms.

¶52

A perusal of the aforesaid Rules of 1994 alongwith the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 thus indicates the exception to such posts which are required to be filled up by promotion but for which merit is the criteria and it is in such circumstances that promotional pay scale would be unavailable.

¶53

Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994 is as follows:-

¶54

" 4 Criterion for recruitment by promotion .- Recruitment by promotion to the post of Head of Department to post just one rank below the Heads of Department and to a post in any service carrying the pay scale the maximum of which is Rs. 18,300 or above shall be made on the basis of merit, and to the rest of the posts in all services to be filled by promotion including a post where promotion is made from a non-gazetted post to a gazetted post or from one service to another service, shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit"

¶55

It is not the case of opposite parties that the post of Workshop S uperintendent comes within purview of either the Head of Department or one rank below the Head of Department or carries the pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs.18,300 or above. In the counter affidavit in fact the opposite parties have clearly admitted the fact that recruitment to the post of Workshop Superintendent is to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.

¶56

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶57

¶58

In such circumstances, it is apparent that recruitment to the post of W orkshop Superintendent is required to be made on the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and merit in fact is not a criteria for recruitment on the said post. In such circumstances, obviously the first part of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994 is clearly inapplicable in the case of petitioner. The second portion of Rule 4 thereof clearly indicates that for other posts in all services to be filled by promotion, seniority subject to rejection of unfit shall be the criteria.

¶59

Evidently, cancellation of pay scale granted to petitioner earlier in the year 2003 on such a ground is erroneous.

¶60

The second ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the Service Rules as amended in the year 1998 provided for recruitment on the post of Workshop Superintendent from such Workshop Instructors who had completed 15 years of substantive service on the post of Workshop Instructor and therefore, there is no occasion to grant the promotional pay scale prior to that upon completion of 14 years of service.

¶61

For purposes of aforesaid ground, a perusal of Government Order dated 02.12.2000 clearly indicates that the next higher promotional pay scale would be available upon completion of 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service. It is necessary to mark a distinction that in the present case, petitioner is seeking the next higher promotional pay scale and not promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent and therefore, it is the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 which shall govern the issue and not the Service Regulations of 1990 as amended in the year 1998 which in fact pertained to the aspect of promotion.

¶62

Once the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 itself confers benefit of grant of the next higher promotional pay scale upon completion of 14 years of continuous satisfactory service, the same cannot be denied by the opposite parties on the ground that promotion on the post requires 15 years of continuous substantive service on the post of Workshop Instructor. The opposite parties have clearly failed to draw a distinction between the aspect of grant of promotional pay scale and promotion on the post of Workshop S uperintendent.

¶63

WRIA No. 2512 of 2024

¶64

¶65

In view of discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that opposite parties have clearly fell in error in recalling the benefit of promotional pay scale on the post of Workshop Superintendent granted earlier to petitioner in the year 2003.

¶66

In view thereof, impugned order dated 30.01.2024 so far as it relates to petitioner being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequences to follow with regard to benefits already granted to petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2003, which shall continue to govern the aspect of promotional pay scale granted to petitioner.

¶67

With regard to petition Writ-A No. 4540 of 2025, since the order has already been quashed, the aspect of grant of benefits sought in the present writ petition in Writ-A No. 4540 of 2025 is directed to be considered by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow or any other competent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date a fresh representation is submitted before the said authority who shall consider and decide the same in the light of judgment rendered hereinabove expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.

¶68

Resultantly, the petitions succeed and are allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶69

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶70

November 13, 2025 Satish

¶71

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Development of Technical Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Development of Technical Education Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Buddhilal Vs State of U.P. through Secy.

Amiy Krishna Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Ratnesh Kumar Trivedi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 10 Others

Satendra Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

General Manager Northern Railway Board and Anors. Vs Addl.Distt.Judge Lcuknow and 2 Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others