Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3649 (ALL)

Ram Pal Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2016-11-07

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. 1. The petitioner is a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited. He is aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the State Government whereby he has been denied the revised pay scale. 2. Previously, for the same relief the petitioner preferred a writ petition no. 1359 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to provide him pay protection and to consider his matter afresh as in the case of the similarly placed persons. The order of this Court dated 19.12.2012 was not complied, hence the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt petition no.1631 of 2013. On 02.08.2013 a statement was made by the respondents therein that the order of the writ Court shall be complied with within three weeks. On the said statement, the matter was adjourned and the impugned order came to be passed on 08.10.2013. Hence the contempt petition was dismissed as infructuous. 3. The essential facts are that the petitioner was an employee of the Auto Tractors Limited which was wound up, hence the employees were retrenched in the year 1990. The petitioner is one of the retrenched employees. 4. The State Government has taken a policy decision to absorb the retrenched employee of the Auto Tractors Limited. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was also absorbed in the Handicapped Welfare Department. 5. At the time when the petitioner was retrenched, he was in the pay scale of Rs.410-640 and his basic pay was Rs.610/-. It is stated that the said pay scale was revised to Rs.950-1500 by the State Government. The petitioner has relied on a Government Order dated 31.12.1997 wherein amongst other, it is provided that while calculating the basic salary, 40% of the basic salary and other allowance shall be added in the next scale. Copy of the government Order is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order the provision of the said Government Order has been completely ignored and without any furnishing reason the authority concerned has passed a cryptic order stating therein that the earlier order passed was valid and correct. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the authority concerned to save his skin passed the order without application of mind. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the authority concerned to save his skin passed the order without application of mind. 7. It was lastly urged that the petitioner has been discriminated also as in the case of the several similarly placed persons, their pay scale has been revised in terms of the Government Order dated 31.12.1997 by adding 40% of their basic salary and the learned counsel for the petitioner has successfully demonstrated that some of the employees, whose order has been brought on record, were in fact drawing lesser salary than the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Government Order dated 31.12.1997 is not applicable to the petitioner. He further submits that he was a retrenched employee, hence he was only entitled for pay protection and not revision. 9. I have considered the rival submission and perused the record. 10. The petitioner preferred a writ petition for the similar relief. This Court accepting the submissions that the petitioner is entitled to the pay protection on the basis of the Government Order dated 31.12.1997, has issued the following direction. "The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a Government Order dated 31.12.1997 which provides the slab of the revised pay-scales. After perusal of the Government Order, I find that the basic pay-scale of Rs. 950/- made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1986 reached Rs. 1375/- in the year 1996. As per Government Order providing the benefit of pay protection to the retrenched employees, the petitioner's pay in the new department had to be protected as he was drawing lastly on the date of retrenchment. Accordingly in the pay-scale of Rs. 950/- as revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 the petitioner's basic pay has to be calculated on the date of his retrenchment in the year 1990 and that has to be protected in accordance with law. Therefore, direction is issued to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner by protecting his salary as last drawn by him in the Auto Tractors Limited on the date of retrenchment." (Emphasis supplied by me.) 11. From the perusal of the said order of this Court, it is evident that the Court has issued a direction in terms of the Government Order dated 31.12.1997. It is not disputed that this order has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the respondents in Special Appeal. From the perusal of the said order of this Court, it is evident that the Court has issued a direction in terms of the Government Order dated 31.12.1997. It is not disputed that this order has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the respondents in Special Appeal. The Government Order dated 31.12.1997 clearly provides that in the existing basic pay 40% amount shall be added while fixing the salary in the revised pay scale. 12. The relevant part of the Government Order dated 31.12.1997 reads as under: %hnd1%^^- - - - ¼1½ deZpkjh ds orZeku osrueku esa izkIr ewy osru dh 40 izfr'kr /kujkf'k ^^orZeku ifjyfC/k;ksa** esa tksM+dj tks /kujkf'k vk,] iqujhf{kr osrueku esa mlds vxys Lrj ij] fdUrq ;fn iqujhf{kr osrueku dk U;wure mijksDr izdkj ls vxf.kr /kujkf'k ls vf/kd gks rks osru dk fu/kkZj.k iqujhf{kr osrueku ds U;wure ij gksxk] vkSj ;fn mijksDr izdkj ls vxf.kr /kujkf'k iqujhf{kr osrueku ds vf/kdre ls vf/kd gks rks iqujhf{kr osureku esa osru dk fu/kkZj.k mDr osrueku ds vf/kdre ij gksxkA - - - - ** %hnd2% 13. From the various orders passed by the authorities namely in the cases of Ramji Prasad Gupta, Amar Veer Singh, Bhola Nath Shukla and Radha Krishan Ayer, it is evident that paragraph no. 4 of the said Government Order has been applied in their pay fixation. The Director of Handicapped Welfare Department in its communication dated August, 1998 has made a recommendation for the pay fixation of t he petitioner at the basic salary of Rs.610/- per month at the time of absorption in the year 1997. A copy of the said communication is on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 14. From the impugned order it is evident that this recommendation of the Director of Handicapped Welfare Department has escaped the notice of the authority concerned. Moreover, the similarly placed persons who were also in the same pay scale, their basic salary is lesser than the petitioner. In the case of Ramji Prasad Gupta, the basic salary at the time of the absorption was Rs.430/-, in the case of Amar Vir Singh, his basic salary at the time of the absorption was Rs.470/- and in the case of Bhola Nath Shukla, his basic salary at the time of the absorption was Rs.550/-. In the case of Ramji Prasad Gupta, the basic salary at the time of the absorption was Rs.430/-, in the case of Amar Vir Singh, his basic salary at the time of the absorption was Rs.470/- and in the case of Bhola Nath Shukla, his basic salary at the time of the absorption was Rs.550/-. Thus, the petitioner's basic salary at the time of the absorption was higher to these persons and was Rs.610/-. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered in the impugned order. 15. In addition to above, once a direction was issued by this Court in the previous writ petition on 19.12.2012, it was obligatory on the part of the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner objectively. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no reason has been mentioned. The authority concerned has only mentioned that earlier order passed is correct. The said approach of the authority concerned cannot be appreciated. I find that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed without application of mind, merits consideration. Thus, the Supreme Court in a long line decision have held that the thin line of the administrative order and quasi judicial order has now obliterated. Reference made be made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of S.N. Mukherji v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , which has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court. 16. Having regard to the fact that no reason has been mentioned by the respondents in the impugned order and by a cryptic order that the order passed by the authority concerned was valid. For this reason alone the order dated 08.10.2013 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 08.10.2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the cause of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observation made herein above. It is expected that the authority concerned shall pass the order objectively. 17. The petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition. He was compelled to file a contempt petition also and for a insignificant matter, the public time of this Court has been wasted due to the casual approach of the authority concerned. It is expected that the authority concerned shall pass the order objectively. 17. The petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition. He was compelled to file a contempt petition also and for a insignificant matter, the public time of this Court has been wasted due to the casual approach of the authority concerned. The Court hope and trust that the authority concerned shall pass a fresh order not later than two months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands allowed.