Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1291 (ALL)

Ravindra Nath Yadav v. State of U. P.

2019-05-13

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner has appointed on the post of Welder in the work charge establishment in the office of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Allahabad. 3. As per averments in the order impugned, it is admitted that initial appointment of the petitioner was of 13.9.1980 in the temporary work charge establishment, on the post of Welder, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Allahabad. He was further kept on the post of Welder w.e.f. 18.12.1982 in the same office in a regular work charge establishment. 4. At the time of bringing him in the regular establishment, the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed to Rs. 315-6-351 as is clear from the averments in paragraph 6' of the counter affidavit. 5. It is further admitted that the post on which the petitioner was appointed, was a sanctioned post of Welder. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the table given in the Annexure-'3' to the writ petition, which is fixation of the pay-scale of a State employees as per the recommendation of the Samata Samiti Report, 1989. 7. In paragraph 8' of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that pay-scale of the post of Welder is Rs. 330-495, which is comparable to pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 and revised pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590. 8. This assertion in paragraph 8' of the writ petition has been replied in paragraph 6' of the counter affidavit in the following manner:- "6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs. 315-6-351 for the sanctioned post of Welder and from 1.1.1986, the pay scale of the petitioner has been revised at Rs. 775-1075 and from 1.1.1996, the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 2750-4400 and from 1.1.2006, on the basis of 6th Pay Commission Report, the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 4440-7440 according to grade pay of Rs. 1400 and after completion of 24 years service, the petitioner is being given second promotional pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 on the pay grade of Rs. 1900/-." 9. 2750-4400 and from 1.1.2006, on the basis of 6th Pay Commission Report, the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 4440-7440 according to grade pay of Rs. 1400 and after completion of 24 years service, the petitioner is being given second promotional pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 on the pay grade of Rs. 1900/-." 9. There is, thus, no dispute with regard to the pay-scale of the post of Welder being Rs. 330-495. No such dispute has also been raised in the order impugned. 10. The order impugned and averments in paragraph 6' of the counter affidavit only proceed on the premise that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Welder in the pay-scale of Rs. 315-6-351. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has further invited attention of the Court to paragraph 11' of the counter affidavit, which also states that the pay-scale of the petitioner had been fixed at Rs. 315-6-351 for the sanctioned post of Welder. 12. For the assertion in paragraph nos. 6' and 11' of the counter affidavit and from the order impugned, it appears that the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 330-495 w.e.f. 18.12.1982 on the regular post of Welder in the work charge establishment, was not considered only on the ground that he was appointed in the pay-scale of Rs. 315-6-351. 13. For the fact that there is no dispute that the pay-scale to the post of Welder was Rs. 350-495 as on the date of appointment of the petitioner i.e. 18.12.1982, in the regular work charge establishment in the office of respondent no. 5, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 22.7.2010 cannot be sustained. The pay-scale is attached to the post and every incumbent who is appointed to a particular post is entitled for the same. 14. It is not open for the respondent to state that initial fixation was on a lesser pay-scale. 15. For the aforesaid, while setting aside the order dated 21/22.7.2010, the respondent no. 3 namely the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Lucknow, is directed to refix the pay-scale of the petitioner and further to compute and pay the differences as admissible to him with 6% simple interest, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is allowed.