Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 33 (UTT)

STATE OF U. P. v. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2014-02-13

B.S.VERMA, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, A.C.J. (Oral) By means of this petition, petitioners have sought for a writ, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2009 rendered by the State Public Services, Tribunal, Nainital Bench, Nainital in Claim Petition no.26 of 2003, Dungar Singh Mehra Vs. Sachiv, Nagar VIkas and others, contained as annexure no.1 to this petition. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that the respondent no.2/claimant Dungar Singh Mehra came to be superannuated on 30.04.1995, as Tax Superintendent, from the Nagar Palika (Centralized) Services, Nagar Palika Nainital. At the time of his retirement, a disciplinary enquiry was pending for adjudication against him, but the same was dropped on 18.12.1998. Subsequent thereto, on 17.2.1999, thereafter respondent no.2 moved a representation before the respondent no.3 for grant of next higher pay scale of Rs.1600-2600, to which he became entitled after completion of 20 years of satisfactory service. This fact is not in dispute that the said benefit was extended to the respondent no.2 w.e.f. 1.1.1994. 3. Petitioner filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, thereby claiming, the grant of pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 instead of Rs.1400-2600. It is the case of petitioners that the respondent no.2 was the member of Revenue Service, but he was never absorbed in the Executive Cadre. The options were invited but the respondent no.2 has submitted his option after the cut-off date, and even his option was not forwarded through proper channel, therefore his representation could not be considered. 4. It was argued on behalf of petitioners that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in not considering the fact that the respondent no.2 had never been a member of Executive Cadre. Besides, when the option for absorption was invited, petitioner did not submit the same within time for being absorbed in the Executive Cadre. It was further argued that the Tribunal, assuming that no decision has been taken on the representation of respondent no.2, has granted him the pay-scale of Executive cadre and that too, without any rhyme or reason and also without any documentary evidence available on record. Therefore, the judgment, under challenge, is perverse which is liable to be set aside. 5. It was further argued that the Tribunal, assuming that no decision has been taken on the representation of respondent no.2, has granted him the pay-scale of Executive cadre and that too, without any rhyme or reason and also without any documentary evidence available on record. Therefore, the judgment, under challenge, is perverse which is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by him, wherein, the averments made in the claim petition, have been reiterated. It was stated on behalf of the said respondent that since no decision was taken on the option submitted by him, the Tribunal was right in granting the pay-scale, as claimed for by him. 6. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties and have perused the entire material available on record. 7. The moot question, to be decided by this Court, is whether the claimant/respondent no.2 was entitled for the pay-scale of Executive Cadre or not? The answer is ‘No’, for the reason that this fact is not under challenge that the respondent no.2, till the date of his superannuation, remained in the Revenue Cadre, and was never absorbed in the Executive Cadre, wherefor the pay-scale was granted to him by the Tribunal. Moreover, as per the relevant Government Orders in this regard, petitioner became entitled for the next higher pay-scale in his cadre. Our attention has been drawn at page no.63 of the petition which deals with the revised pay-scale which became applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Therein at Serial No.10, the next pay scale of respondent no.2 is given as Rs.1400-2600. 8. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 placed reliance at Serial No.2 of page no.44 which prescribes the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000, however that pay-scale is in respect of Executive Officers. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is misconceived for the reason that the said pay-scale is of an Executive Officer, and not of the Revenue Cadre, to which the respondent no.2 belongs. The respondent no.2 was never absorbed in the Executive cadre nor did he work, as such, ever. Thus, the pay-scale, which is being claimed by respondent no.2, and was subsequently allowed by the Tribunal, could not be granted to him. 4 9. The respondent no.2 was never absorbed in the Executive cadre nor did he work, as such, ever. Thus, the pay-scale, which is being claimed by respondent no.2, and was subsequently allowed by the Tribunal, could not be granted to him. 4 9. In the light of above-discussion, we are of the considered view that the respondent no.2 is not entitled for the pay-scale as claimed by him. Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order, under challenge, is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.