Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2467 (ALL)

OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2017-10-30

A.P.SAHI, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Saral Srivastava, J. This writ petition has been filed praying for a grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 to the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment and to sanction the revised equivalent pay scale thereof upon the pay scale being revised and disburse the entire arrears of salary on account of such re-fixation accordingly. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was an existing staff and was working as a Clerk in the respondent No. 2 Society since 1981. The respondents invited applications from the existing staff for appointment as Officer on Special Duty for conducting cases and legal matters in the High Court at Allahabad. The applications had been invited under the orders dated 22.05.2000 issued by the Deputy General Manager. The post had been created under the orders of the Registrar Co-operative Societies U.P. dated 16.05.2000 and a copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure No.-6 to the counter affidavit. The qualification fixed for the said post is Law Graduate and the pay scale indicated therein was that of Rs. 1600-2660. A Committee was constituted and the petitioner came to be appointed pursuant to a selection procedure. The appointment order has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the petitioner accordingly joined on the post of Officer on Special Duty at Allahabad. 3. It is the admitted position of the petitioner as per para 11 of the writ petition that the present controversy has absolutely no concern with the issue of earlier reinstatement or his transfer to Lucknow involved in Writ Petition No. 25322 of 2009 and 25373 of 2010. Writ Petition No. 25373 of 2010 relating to transfer has been dismissed by a separate order today as infructuous as the petitioner has admittedly retired from service. Similarly, writ petition no. 25322 of 2009 relating to reinstatement has been disposed off with an observation relation to payment of salary of the suspension period. 4. It appears that the petitioner after having been appointed in the year 2000 approached the Managing Director for placing him in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The said request dated 04.10.2003 a copy whereof is Annexure-4 to the writ petition does not indicate as to why this request had been made and the basis thereof. 4. It appears that the petitioner after having been appointed in the year 2000 approached the Managing Director for placing him in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The said request dated 04.10.2003 a copy whereof is Annexure-4 to the writ petition does not indicate as to why this request had been made and the basis thereof. However the second representation dated 26.02.2004 addressed to the Managing Director states that since the petitioner has been successfully conducting the cases on behalf of the department in the Allahabad High Court that has resulted in benefits to the respondent Society, therefore, he should be given the next higher pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. These personal requests of the petitioner were forwarded by then Managing Director to the Additional Registrar Co-operative Society, Lucknow with recommendation on 11.03.2004 keeping in view the contribution of the petitioner in the performance of his duties. The Co-operative Federation appears to have passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner that was forwarded to the Additional Registrar Co-operative Society on 22.06.2005. The matter was also placed in the Pay Equivalence Committee which resolved on 13.06.2008 to consider the said request for upgrading the pay scale of the Officer on Special Duty (Writs) the post held by the petitioner, in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. This document has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 5. Subsequently the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Services Board advertised the post of Officer on Special Duty indicating the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. The petitioner moved a representation before the Managing Director that in view of said pay scale having been advertised, and the fact that the petitioner has the additional qualification of Law Graduate, he should be extended the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. 6. The petitioner was not extended any such benefit but on account of the promulgation of the VIth Pay Commission, he was placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as is evident from the order dated 28.09.2011. 7. The respondents have stated categorically in the counter affidavit that the request of the petitioner for a higher pay scale was subject to approval by the Registrar Co-operative Societies and the proposals of the Managing Director and the Equivalence Committee were placed before the Registrar. 8. 5000-8000 as is evident from the order dated 28.09.2011. 7. The respondents have stated categorically in the counter affidavit that the request of the petitioner for a higher pay scale was subject to approval by the Registrar Co-operative Societies and the proposals of the Managing Director and the Equivalence Committee were placed before the Registrar. 8. The Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies declined to accept any such proposal of modifying the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.1600-2660 to Rs.2200-4000. A copy of the said order dated 25.01.2010 viz-a-viz the petitioner himself is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Additional Registrar on 01.11.2011 also communicated the said fact with a further indication that the Federation had requested for a revised staffing pattern against 389 posts, including the post of Officer on Special Duty (Writs) Allahabad at serial number 10 in the pay scale Rs.6500-10500, but vide letter dated 20.06.2010 the Registrar approved only 361 posts which does not include the post of Officer on Special Duty (Writ). In the absence of any such approval in the said pay scale there was no post against which the petitioner's claim could be considered. 9. The aforesaid two communications dated 25.01.2010 and 01.11.2011 have been filed along with the counter affidavit of the respondents in 2012 itself. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit and has denied the exact status of the pay fixation under the VIth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and has re4 asserted that in the event his pay scale is re-fixed from the date of his initial appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 then in that even he would be getting higher benefits. It has further been stated that since the respondent Society has already taken a final decision to upgrade the pay scale of the petitioner, and the Equivalence Committee has done so, therefore the petitioner is entitled to the said benefit. A communication dated 30.11.2012 from the Federation to the Additional Registrar has been placed contending that the Managing Director has made a request to the Additional Registrar for considering the upgradation of the pay scale of the petitioner keeping in view that a similar pay scale has been given to one Smt. Girija Devi also appointed as Officer on Special Duty. 10. 10. In our opinion there is nothing on record to demonstrate that as and when the petitioner was appointed in the year 2000 some other pay scale was also available so as to consider the argument of any discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner accepted the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 in the year 2000 and started making requests for pay upgradation from 2004 that was declined in 2010 and again in 2011. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the said orders and communications that have been filed along with counter affidavit. Apart from this no factual foundation has been laid so as to demonstrate any discrimination and therefore any recommendation made by any authority would not automatically be binding so as to extend any such benefit as claimed by the petitioner. 11. Consequently we do not find any merit in the contention that the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from the date of his initial appointment. 12. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.