State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Surendra Singh (Pno No. 970690036)

3. There is a delay of 72 days in Special Appeal Defective No. 321 of 2024 and delay of 68 days in Special Appeal Defective No. 317 of 2024 in filing the same by the State. The applications for condonation of delay

¶22

SPLAD No. 321 of 2024

¶23

2

¶24

supported by an affidavit have been filed.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the application for condonation of delay.

¶26

5. Cause shown in the affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay in filing special appeal is sufficient.

¶27

6. The applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶28

Order on Special Appeals

¶29

1. By means of these special appeals the State has challenged the judgment and orders dated 15.02.2024 and 19.02.2024 passed in Writ - A No. 1115 of 2024 and Writ - A No. 1212 of 2024 respectively.

¶30

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties ultimately what comes out is that in the Provincial Armed Constabulary of the State of U.P., although, there are no rules specifically for Provincial Armed Constabulary but there are Rules for the Police Department for Group- D employees which prescribe qualification of Class- V for Class- IV post. In fact there are no specific Rules in the Provincial Armed Constabulary for Class - IV. Employees of Provincial Armed Constabulary and Police Department are governed by two different enactments i.e. the Police Act, 1861 and the Provincial Armed Constabulary Act, 1948. The respondentspetitioners are Pump Operators which is a Class- IV post in the Provincial Armed Constabulary and their qualification is High School with ITI Certificate. They filed writ petition claiming Pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000, as revised from time to time, on the ground that in other departments of the State Government the aforesaid pay-scale had been made admissible where the Class- IV employees have the qualification of High School with ITI Certificate. The learned Single Judge has accepted the

¶31

SPLAD No. 321 of 2024

¶32

3

¶33

submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners, especially, for the reason that a similar writ petition bearing No. 4127 (S/S) of 2007 decided on 01.04.2019 was allowed against which the State filed Special Appeal Defective No. 369 of 2019 which was dismissed and thereafter, Special Leave to Appeal No. 26389 of 2019 was also dismissed.

¶34

3. The only contention raised by Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellant before us is that the Government Order dated 08.10.2002, on which reliance is being placed, has no application, as, in the case of the respondents-petitioners the qualification prescribed in the Rules is not High School but Class- V, however, he does not dispute the fact that the respondents-petitioners do not possess the qualification of High School with ITI Certificate. We fail to understand as to why the State which is not only the Employer of all those personnel appointed in other departments but also in the Police Department including the Provincial Armed Constabulary has prescribed different Rules for the same post of Pump Operator. What can be the justification for denying the Pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the respondents-petitioners if they possess the qualification of High School with ITI Certificate as is mentioned in the Government Order dated 08.10.2002, based on which persons working as Pump Operator having said qualifications were granted the said Pay- scale and not to grant the same to police personnel merely on the ground that the Rules of the Police Department, assuming that they are applicable to the Provincial Armed Constabulary, prescribe only the qualification of Class-V. Apparently, the treatment of the respondents-petitioners by the State is unreasonable and arbitrarily. Prescription of separate qualification itself is

¶35

SPLAD No. 321 of 2024

¶36

4

¶37

unreasonable.

¶38

4. It is also not the case of the appellant that the duties of Pump Operator in the Police Department are any different from any Pump Operator in any other department nor could it be canvassed before us that for operating the Pump in a Police Department a lesser qualification is required while for operating the Pump in other departments a higher qualification is required. In any case the respondents-petitioners possess the qualification of High School with ITI Certificate. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been clearly violated in this case. Purely in the facts of the case we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and orders of the writ Court.

¶39

5. Both the Special Appeals are dismissed.

¶40

6. Interim order stands discharged.

¶41

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶42

April 3, 2026 R.K.P.

¶43

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others v. Surendra Singh (Pno No. 970690036)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others v. Surendra Singh (Pno No. 970690036)

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

Pradeep Kumar Balmeeki vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others vs Ramesh Chandra Shukla

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others vs Sitaram Pal

The State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Shailesh Kumar Singh (Pno No. 130690036)

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 4 Others vs Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Dr. Mithilesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko and 2 Others