Allowed

Mohan Prasad Maithani v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC12 Nov 2021WPSS/99/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed an order refusing to consider a petitioner's claim for upgradation of grade pay. The court held that a prior court direction mandated an examination of the claim, and a financial restraint order valid only for 2020-21 could not justify inaction. The court directed the State to reconsider the representation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.10.2020 was quashed. The State Government was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2020 and pass an appropriate order within eight weeks.

Mohan Prasad Maithani Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

ON THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition (S/S) No. 99 of 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Mohan Prasad Maithani …Petitioner

¶7

(By Mr. Shubhash Upadhyaya, Advocate)

¶8

AND:

¶9

State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents

¶10

(Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State)

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

Petitioner is a regular employee of Home Guard and Civil Security Department of the State Government. He was promoted to the post of Paid Inspector on 05.02.2016. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to Grade Pay of 4600/in the pay band of 9,300-34,800/- and Commandant General, Home Guards made recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2018, which was reiterated in his subsequent letters.

¶13

2. Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 721 of 2020 seeking a direction to the State Government to consider his case for upgradation of grade pay in terms of recommendation made by the Commandant General. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.07.2020 with the direction to the State

decision

the

Government to take

recommendation dated 14.08.2018.

¶20

3. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by Home Department of the State Government. By the said order, the Additional Secretary, Home Department has refused to consider the matter of up-gradation of grade pay of the petitioner by relying upon a Government Order issued on 10.06.2020. Perusal of the said Government Order indicates that it was issued only for the financial year 2020-21 as during that financial year, State Government was reeling under financial crisis, due to lockdown imposed in view of COVID-19 pandemic. Reliance has been placed upon para no.2 of the Government Order dated 10.06.2020, which provides that during financial year 2020-21, there shall be no up-gradation of pay for any post.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 721 of 2020, State Government was under a duty to examine petitioner’s case in the light of the recommendation made by the Commandant General. He further submits that refusal to consider petitioner’s claim on the strength of Government Order dated 10.06.2020, cannot be sustained. He further submits that since financial year 2020-21 is over long-back, therefore, necessary direction be issued to the State

¶22

¶23

Government to consider petitioner’s case for upgradation of pay-scale.

¶24

5. This Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the direction issued by this Court, it was incumbent upon State Government to examine petitioner’s claim for up-gradation of grade pay, although, payment of upgraded pay could have been deferred in view of impending financial crisis. Thus, inaction on the part of State Government in considering petitioner’s claim cannot be justified. Even otherwise also, financial year 2020-21 is over long-back, therefore, Government Order dated 10.06.2020 cannot be relied now for not considering petitioner’s claim.

¶25

6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.10.2020 is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to State Government to consider petitioner’s representation dated 03.07.2020, in the light of the recommendation made by respondent no.2 vide letter 14.08.2018 and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, alongwith copy of the representation.

¶26

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶27

Shubham

Mohan Prasad Maithani v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Prasad Maithani v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Kumari Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Tiwari Vs Yogendra Sharma

Jai Durga Stone Mills Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Transport Secretariat Complex

Akshay Uniyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Saxena Vs Najar Ali

Abhay Kumar Srivastava Vs Mr. Jagdish Prasad