Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 234 (ALL)

Sukhbasi Lal Niranjan v. State of U. P.

2017-01-17

DILIP B.BHOSALE, YASHWANT VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.13016 of 2017. Heard Mr. Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The appellant prays for condoning 282 days' delay caused in filing the special appeal. The respondents have not filed any reply opposing the prayer till today. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the application and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Order on Special Appeal: This special appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's writ petition, bearing Writ-A No.43708 of 2015 has been dismissed. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the order dated 26.9.2012, whereby his representation for revision of pensionary benefits has been rejected. The appellant was appointed as a Cane Supervisor on 21.7.1955 and was confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1965. Thereafter, on 28.3.1985, he was promoted to the post of Cane Development Inspector and worked on the said post till his retirement on 30.11.1990. He was not given further increments or the next higher pay scale since, admittedly, he did not clear the departmental examination, but in any case, he was entitled for the basic pay scale for the post of Cane Development Inspector with effect from 28.3.1985. It appears from the order that was challenged in the writ petition as also from the order of learned Single Judge that reliance was placed on Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Cane (Group-I and II-General) Services Rules, 1979 (for short 'Rules, 1979') by the respondents to deny the appellant's claim. We have perused Rule 23 of the Rules, 1979, which deals with pay during probation. Learned Single Judge has quoted the said rule in his order. From a bare perusal of Rule 23, we are satisfied that the said rule would not apply to the appellant since he was a permanent government servant before his promotion to the post of Cane Development Inspector and he was not on probation on the post to which he was promoted. When we so expressed, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order and prayed for disposal of the appeal. When we so expressed, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order and prayed for disposal of the appeal. Hence, we dispose of this appeal by the following order: "The order dated 4.3.2016 passed by learned Single Judge and the order dated 26.9.2012 that was challenged in the writ petition are set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the appellant's claim in the light of the relevant rules and pass a fresh order, bearing in mind that the appellant was promoted on 28.3.1985 as Cane Development Inspector and he continued to work on the said post till his retirement on 30.11.1990. If these facts are admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the concerned authority will have to consider the appellant's prayer for fixing his basic pay as admissible to the post of Cane Development Inspector and, in view thereof, revision of pensionary benefits. We hope and trust that the concerned authority shall undertake and complete this exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is open to the appellant to produce a copy of this order and the other material, if any, in support of his claim before the concerned authority, within a period of two weeks from today."