Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 21 (ALL)

NAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-04

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the responde1-3nt No. 3. Further prayer has been made seeking direction to the respondent No. 5 to take the duties of the petitioners as per their appointed post. 4. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is being decided at this stage itself. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been appointed specifically as Lab Attendent and vacancy was also advertised for the same post and as such they cannot be assigned any other work as is being allotted to them. It is not in dispute that the work that is being assigned to the petitioners is different than the work of the Lab Attendant but the work that is being assigned also carries the same pay-scale, however, submission is that once the post is different and has been advertised separately, even if they carry the same pay-scale the different work cannot be assigned to the petitioners and as such the impugned order dated 4.9.2015, whereby the earlier order dated 2.1.2015, whereby it was provided that as far as possible Class IV employee should be taken work on the post for which they have been appointed. Submission is that therefore the assignment of work of a different post, may be in the same pay-scale, cannot be assigned and and the same is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the grade pay of Waterman, Ardali, Chowkidar and Attendant is same and therefore, there is no illegality in taking the work from the petitioners on a different post, which is of the equal pay-scale. Referring to Rule 11 of the Financial Handbook, Vol.-II, it was submitted that this provision squarely covers the present controversy. It was further submitted that due to non availability of the Class IV employee such work is being assigned to the petitioners. Referring to Rule 11 of the Financial Handbook, Vol.-II, it was submitted that this provision squarely covers the present controversy. It was further submitted that due to non availability of the Class IV employee such work is being assigned to the petitioners. It is submitted that once the pay-scale is same it cannot be said that the petitioners are not under obligation to perform the work of Class IV employee of the same pay-scale in such special circumstances when other Class IV employee of a different category is not available. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. 8. At the very outset, Rule 11 Vol. 2 of the Financial Handbook is quoted as under: **11- tc rd fdlh ekeys esa Li"V :i ls vU;Fkk dksbZ O;oLFkk u dh x;h gks] ljdkjh deZpkjh dk iw.kZ le; ljdkj ds v/khu gS vkSj vko';drkuqlkj leqfpr vf/kdkjh }kjk og fdlh Hkh izdkj dh lsok esa yxk;k tk ldrk gSA blds fy;s og fdlh vfrfjDr ifjJfed ds fy;s nkok ugha dj ldrk] pkgs mlls tks lsok yh tk;s] og ,slh gks fd ftldk ikfjJfed lk/kkj.kr;k izns'k ds jktLo ls] LFkkuh; fuf/k ls ;k fdlh la;qDr ;k vU; ,sls fudk; dh fuf/k ls fn;k tk;s tks iw.kZ ;k eq[; :i ls 'kklu ds LokfeRo ;k fu;a=.k esa gksA** (Emphasis supplied) 9. There is no doubt that other work is being taken from the petitioners, however, a perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ petition indicates that the work, which is being taken from the petitioners also falls within the same pay-scale. 10. In such view of the matter, action of the respondent authority, which is purely administrative in nature and is based on requirement of working hands due to paucity of staff etc. or exigency, is covered by Rule 11 of the Financial Handbook, Vol.II. The petitioner cannot have grievance in case they assigned some other work of the same pay-scale may be advertised, recruited and selected on a different post. It is not a case of violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.