Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1221 (ALL)

RAM KINKAR TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-09-10

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.K.SEN

body2002
R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Ram Kinkar Tripathi, the appellant writ petitioner, has filed the present special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 5. 1. 1996, passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by him, has been partly allowed with the following directions:- "in that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner succeeds to the extent that he is entitled to get the revised pay with effect from 1. 1. 1986. No other question having been urged in this writ petition, this writ petition is allowed only with the direction that the respondents are directed to make payment of all arrears to the petitioner with effect from 1. 1. 1986. Such arrears are to be paid within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. " ( 2 ) WE have heard Shri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner and Shri Sabhajeet Yadav learned standing counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) SHRI H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner submitted that the appellant writ petitioner was initially appointed as Staff Instructor under the Provincial Shiksha Dal on 24. 2. 1964. Provincial Shiksha Dal was amalgamated with the Education department and the services of the appellant writ petitioner was placed under the control of Director of Education (Basic ). According to him the Provincial shiksha Dal was abolished in the year 1972 and all the staff were absorbed with the department of Basic Education. The appellant writ petitioner was getting the pay scale of Rs. 175-250 in the year 1972. The pay scale of State Government employees was revised in the year 1979 and again w. e. f. 1st January, 1986. According to the counsel due to some omission the pay scale of Staff Instructor was not revised, whereupon the appellant writ petitioner approached this court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15187 of 1985 which was disposed by this court vide judgment and order dated 28. 3. 1988 with the direction to the Additional director of Education to decide the case of the petitioner, if possible, within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the judgment upon him. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction given by this court, the Addl. 3. 1988 with the direction to the Additional director of Education to decide the case of the petitioner, if possible, within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the judgment upon him. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction given by this court, the Addl. Director of education vide letter dated 19th July, 1989, written to the Joint Secretary, education Govt. of U. P. Lucknow stated that the pay scale of Rs. 175-250 in which the appellant writ petitioner was placed on 1. 8. 1972 was equivalent to the pay scale which the drivers were getting and since the pay scale of the drivers have been raised on 1st July, 1979 to Rs. 330-495 the same pay scale be given to the appellant writ petitioner. When a final decision was not being taken by the competent authority, the appellant writ petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 6746 of 1981 against the then Additional Director of Education (Basic ). However, the said contempt petition was dismissed vide order dated 1. 5. 1991. ( 5 ) THE petitioner again approached this court by filing Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 26287 of 1991 for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 i. e. the State of u. P. through the Education Secretary U. P. Lucknow and the Director of Education (Basic) Lucknow to revise pay scale of the appellant writ petitioner w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979 and to pay arrears of his salary. The said writ petition has been decided by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 5. 1. 1996 on the basis of G. O. dated 4. 10. 1991 by which the State Government had granted the benefits of the revised pay scale to the appellant writ petitioner w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel has submitted that there is no dispute that the pay scale of all the State Government employees had been revised w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979 and, thus, there is no question of not giving the benefits of the revised pay scale to the appellant writ petitioner from the date. 1. 1986. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel has submitted that there is no dispute that the pay scale of all the State Government employees had been revised w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979 and, thus, there is no question of not giving the benefits of the revised pay scale to the appellant writ petitioner from the date. According to him even though the pay commission had not specifically recommended the revision of the pay scale of the Staff Instructor working in the basic Education Department, they cannot be denied the benefits of the revision of the pay scale in as much as they are entitled for such revised pay scale which other persons are getting who were placed in the same pay scale in other posts of other department or that department. ( 7 ) SHRI Sabhajeet Yadav, learned standing Counsel, however, submitted that since the pay scale of the appellant writ petitioner had not been revised he is not entitled to get the revised pay scale w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979 and in view of the G. O. dated 4. 10. 1991 he has rightly been given the benefit of the revised pay scale w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant writ petitioner had been appointed on the post of Staff Instructor in the Provincial shiksha Dal and after its amalgamation with the Basic Education Department he was getting the pay scale of Rs. 175-250. The pay scales of all the Government employees have been revised by the State government w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979. By the Govt. Order dated 4. 10. 1991 the revision of pay scale of Staff Instructor was effected w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 or from the date of creation of the post whichever is later. It appears that the post of Staff Instructor was created on 12. 12. 1964. Even though the revision of pay scale took place in the year 1979 and 1986 but the appellant writ petitioners pay scale was not revised. He is entitled for revision of pay scale when the pay scale of all other State government employees have been revised. The State Government has not given any reason for fixing the cut off date for revising the appellants pay scale w. e. f. 1. 1. He is entitled for revision of pay scale when the pay scale of all other State government employees have been revised. The State Government has not given any reason for fixing the cut off date for revising the appellants pay scale w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 and not earlier when the revision took place in respect of other category of the staff. There is no justification for the State Government not to revise the pay scale w. e. f. 12. 7. 1979 when the benefit of the revised pay scale has been given to all the State government employees and such an action of the State Government is arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the Special Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The respondent no. 1 is directed to fix the pay scale of the appellant writ petitioner w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979 within 2 months from the date of communication of this order and pay the entire arrears of salary which is found due and payable within one month thereafter. ( 10 ) THE judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 5. 1. 1996 is modified to the extent mentioned above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .