Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2768 (ALL)

Jaikaran Lal v. State of U. P.

2014-09-08

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 12.6.2009, passed by the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-I, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby their claim was rejected on the ground that during 5th Pay Commission he had filled up the optional form w.e.f. February, 1996 whereas Vth Pay Commission came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Petitioners have further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and pay all the difference of salary (Rs. 140/-) to them as has been given to the similarly situated persons working in the same capacity and also pay arrears of salary. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1994 except petitioner no. 17 who was appointed in the year 1991 as Part-time Tubewell Operators, after following due procedure and they are continuing till date from the date of their initial appointments. Further submission is that in pursuance to the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission which were implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996, an option was sought from the employees on the prescribed proforma and the petitioners inadvertently mentioned 1.2.1996 in the option form in place of 1.1.1996 and as a result of the same opposite parties fixed their salary wrongly as Rs. 3725/- in place of Rs. 3800/-, as provided to similarly situated persons and as a consequence of 6th Pay Commission, they are getting total salary Rs. 9810/- whereas petitioners are getting less salary of Rs. 140/- per month from other similarly situated persons. 4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved approached the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand-I, Lakhimpur Kheri for correction of the anomalies and with a prayer to grant them salary which is being paid to their other counter parts. The opposite party no. 3 by means of order dated 12.6.2009 rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners themselves had filled up the optional forms and accordingly their salaries have been fixed and there is no anomaly in the same. Being aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 5. The opposite party no. 3 by means of order dated 12.6.2009 rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners themselves had filled up the optional forms and accordingly their salaries have been fixed and there is no anomaly in the same. Being aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Submission of Sri Gaya Deep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the option was to be filled up in pursuance to the Government Order dated 31st December, 1997 and the revised scales in pursuance to the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission Report has been implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the employees were required to give option with respect to accepting the said pay scale whether an employee was required to accept the said scale or not and there was no dispute with respect to the date of the implementation as recommendations of 5th Pay Commission have been implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Therefore, because of the mistake of mentioning date 2nd February, 1996 in place of 1.1.1996 in the optional forms, petitioners' claim cannot be rejected and if there was some anomaly in the date, petitioner ought to have corrected the same. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the no doubt option was to be given for new pay scale w.e.f. the date the employee wanted to have it implemented and once it is filled up, it cannot be changed. In this background, submission of learned counsel for the opposite parties is that claim of the petitioners is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 8. Admittedly, the report of 5th Pay Commission was implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and there is no dispute about the date of implementation of the same. If there was some mistake in filling up of the optional form, it was open for an employee to correct the same, specially, when the request was made for correction, the same should have been permitted to correct the same. Admittedly, because of implementation of revised pay scale, petitioner was put to financial loss. The said mistake could have been rectified on the request of the petitioner. By allowing the correction will not amount to change in the option form. 9. Admittedly, because of implementation of revised pay scale, petitioner was put to financial loss. The said mistake could have been rectified on the request of the petitioner. By allowing the correction will not amount to change in the option form. 9. In view of the above, the order dated 12.6.2009, passed by the opposite party no. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to permit the petitioner to correct the date in his optional form filled up by the petitioners and thereafter release the entire upheld amount and also pay them salary at the rate similarly situated persons are getting, including the difference of salary. 10. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of finally. 11. No order as to costs.