Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2607 (ALL)

Srikant Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2019-11-20

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Srikant Srivastava and 6 others have approached this Court interalia for following reliefs:- “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure No.38 to the present writ petition) passed by the respondent no.1, served on the petitioner no.1, on 31.3.2017 through letter dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure No.37-B to the present writ petition); (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix and pay the salary of the petitioners in accordance with the fitment chart issued by the State Government by means of the Government Order dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure No.13 to the present writ petition) with effect from the date of promotion of the petitioners on the post of Personal Assistant; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners in accordance with the payment of the salary as made to the employees of the High Court, Allahabad in pursuance of the Government Order dated 29.4.2019 (Annexure No.12 to the present writ petition) (iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of amount with effect from the date of promotion of the petitioners on the post of the Personal Assistant alongwith the interest at the rate of 18% per annum.” 3. In order to appreciate the controversy in the present writ petition, it is essential to notice salient facts of the case. 4. The petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-in the office of U.P. State Law Officers, High Court, Allahabad/Lucknow on 03.01.2006 and in pursuance of the appointment letters, they joined on the said post on 5.1.2006/6.1.2006. Thereafter, they were promoted on the post of the Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-on 10.07.2006. Thereafter, they were promoted on the post of the Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-on 10.07.2006. Meanwhile, the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission with regard to the employees of the State Government were implemented by the State Government with effect from 01.01.2006 by means of Government Order dated 8.12.2008, wherein the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-, which was applicable for the post of Personal Assistant, had been replaced/substituted in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-w.e.f. 01.1.2006. 5. The State Government issued Government order dated 8.8.2007, whereby the pay scale on the post of Personal Assistant (Additional Private Secretary) as well as Upper Division Assistant (Review Officer) working in the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad was upgraded from the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-to the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-with effect from 26.6.2007. Thereafter, by means of Government order dated 22.10.2008 the pay scale on the post of Personal Assistant (Additional Private Secretary) as well as Upper Division Assistant (Review Officer) of the office of U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow, High Court, Allahabad was also upgraded to the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-with effect from 21.6.2007. The State Government had issued another Government order dated 8.12.2008, wherein the procedure for fixation of salary has been laid down in accordance with the recommendations of the th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and when an employee is given promotion on a higher category post from the lower category post, in that event the fixation of the salary of such promottee will be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Para-11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008. 6. On 25.03.2010 another Government Order was issued wherein the State Government made provision that the payment of salary to the holder of such posts of the State Government, which are carrying the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 (Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 along with the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-), would be made in accordance with the Fitment Chart No.1 attached with the said Government Order, and in such cases, the posts carrying the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 (Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800/-along with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-) have been upgraded subsequently after 01.01.2006 when the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were made applicable. Again by the Government order dated 29.4.2010 the Grade Pay and the Pay Band of the incumbents, holding the post of the Additional Private Secretary (Personal Assistant) and the Review Officer and the Review Officer (Accounts) in the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad were upgraded to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 with effect from 01.01.2006 by making the provision in Paragraph No.2 of the said Government order that the fixation of the salary would be made in accordance with the Fitment Chart given in Schedule-I and Schedule-II attached with the Government Order dated 29.04.2010. 7. Since the employees of the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office have been granted parity with the employees of Allahabad High Court by the State Government vide Government Order dated 11.09.1974, another Government Order dated 16.09.2010 was issued by the State Government with regard to the Personal Assistants (Additional Private Secretaries), Review Officers and Review Officers (Accounts) of the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office exactly on the same terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid Government Order dated 29.04.2010 pertaining to the Additional Private Secretaries (Personal Assistants), Review Officers and the Review Officers (Accounts) of the establishment of this Court by which the Pay Band and the Grade Pay of the incumbents holding the posts of the Review Officer, Personal Assistant (Additional Private Secretary) and the Review Officer (Accounts) in the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office was upgraded to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-with effect from 01.01.2006 by further making the provision under Paragraph No.2 of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 that the fixation of their salary would be made in accordance with the Fitment Chart given in Schedule-I and Schedule-II attached with the Government Order dated 16.09.2010. 8. It is being claimed that the petitioners are entitled to be paid their salary in the upgraded Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-instead of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-. After implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the classification of various categories of posts made by Government order dated 7.10.2003 have also been re-determined by the State Government on 14.5.2012, wherein the status and rank of the concerned posts are determined on the basis of Pay Scales/Pay Band and Grade Pay, which have been assigned to the concerned posts. Till the post of Personal Assistant of the office of U.P. State Law Officers was carrying the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-in the Grade Pay of Rs.9300-34800/-, they were classified as Group-C Category posts and immediately after the posts of the Personal Assistant etc. had been upgraded by assigning the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-, automatically the posts of the Personal Assistant etc. of the said office became classified as Group-B category posts. 9. Ultimately, the petitioners were promoted on the post of Private Secretary (Grade-I) in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100/-Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-on 29.9.2016. They joined on the post of Private Secretary (Grade-I) on 30.9.2016 and since then they are continuously working on the post of Private Secretary Grade-1. The petitioners are claiming similar treatment in the matter of payment of salary at par with the comparable employees working in the establishment of this Court. 10. The conditions of service of the employees of the office of U.P. State Law Officers' High Court, Allahabad/Lucknow are regulated by means of Service Rules known as “The Uttar Pradesh Advocate General and Law Officers' Establishment Service Rules, 2009”, which came into effect from 11.11.2009, as amended from time to time. Earlier their services were regulated by means of Rules known as “The United Provinces Legal Remembrancer's and Law Officers Establishments Rules, 1942, as amended from time to time. 11. Now the bone of contention in the present dispute is as to what would be the procedure for fixation of the salary to the incumbents holding the post of Personal Assistant, when the status of the post of Personal Assistant alongwith certain other posts of the office of State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow itself has been upgraded by giving higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-instead of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-. 12. In this backdrop, Shri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that ever since 11.9.1974 the employees of the office of the U.P. State Law Officers are being treated to be similarly situated with the employees of the High Court holding corresponding post in pursuance of the concept of parity as provided in the Government order dated 11.9.1974 in respect of their source and method of recruitment etc. and they are getting the same pay scales and allowances as is being paid to the employees of the High Court holding corresponding posts. and they are getting the same pay scales and allowances as is being paid to the employees of the High Court holding corresponding posts. 13. It is submitted that by the Government Orders dated 25.03.2010, 29.04.2010 and 16.09.2010 the incumbents of the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad and the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office holding the posts of Personal Assistant (Additional Private Secretary), Review Officer and Review Officer (Accounts) became entitled for the payment of their salary by making the payment of Rs.17,140/-, which is the minimum of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-. However, as per Government Order dated 31.01.2011 it is evident that the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad referred the matter for clarification to the State Government for payment of the salary by making the payment at par with the Review Officers appointed through direct appointment process in pursuance of the Government Order dated 29.04.2010 to those Review Officers of the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad, who were promoted on the promotional post of Review Officer on or after 01.01.2006. Initially the same was rejected by the State Government by means of the aforesaid Government Order dated 31.01.2011 on the same basis on which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 by taking the shelter of the same Paragraph No.11 of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008, but later on, when the concerned Review Officers of the establishment of High Court, Allahabad agitated the matter at various appropriate levels of the High Court as well as the State Government, ultimately, with the consent of the State Government the same was made available to them under the order of Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court dated 02.09.2011 by giving the minimum of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800, i.e. Rs.17,140/-with effect from the date of their promotion on the post of the Review Officer from the post of the Assistant Review Officer, in pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order dated 29.04.2010. 14. 14. It is sought to be contended that a large number of similarly situated employees of the establishment of High Court, Allahabad have already been granted the benefits of the pay fixation by giving them the minimum of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34,800/-in accordance with the Government order dated 29.4.2019 and inspite of the parity having been granted with the staff of the High Court, the said benefit with effect from the date of their promotion on the post of the Personal Assistant (Additional Private Secretary) was not made available to them even after the issuance of the aforesaid Government Order dated 16.09.2010. The petitioner no.2 made an application under the Right To Information Act, 2005 dated 18.11.2011. Consequently, the Central Public Information Officer, High Court, Allahabad provided the following information to him by his letter No. 9381/R.T.I./751/2011/AHC, dated 05.01.2012: - “With reference to your application dated 18/11/2011 in which you have sought following information under Right to Information Act, 2005, please find enclosed herewith the following information: - Information regarding officials working in this Hon’ble Court namely Sri Santosh Kumar (Emp.No.7305), Akhil Kumar Kureel (Emp.No.7306) and Sanjeev Kumar Mishra (Emp.No.7327) as Review Officers, High Court, Allahabad, are as under: 1. Attested copies of the Appointment and Promotion Letter. 2. Attested copies of all pages of Service Book with posting. 3. Attested copies of Pay Fixation Chart after promotion from the post of Assistant Review Officer to Review Officer. 4. Attested copies of Option Form of Pay Fixation. Attested copies of the G.O. and letter from which the option was opted to fix the pay.” 15. It is contended that after receiving the aforementioned details the petitioners have also made detailed representation dated 25.7.2016 to the competent authority and requested for fixation of pay in accordance with the provisions of Fitment Chart as per Government orders dated 25.3.2010 and 16.9.2010 by fixing their salary at the minimum stage of Rs.17,140/-w.e.f. 10.7.2006 in the case of the petitioner nos.2 to 7 (the date on which they joined on the promoted post of Personal Assistant) and with effect from 15/16.3.2007 in the case of the petitioner no.1 (the date on which he joined on the promoted post of Personal Assistant). The aforesaid representation was forwarded by learned Advocate General, U.P to the State Government on 31.7.2016/3.8.2016 with categorical term that the grievance of the petitioners is genuine and the same is required to be considered at the end of the State Government but in most arbitrary manner by the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 the respondents have denied the claim set up by the petitioners by holding that the petitioners were appointed after 1.1.2006 or promoted after the said date. Consequently, they are entitled only for the payment of the salary, which was applicable without upgradation of the post and for which the reliance has been placed on paragraph no.11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008. 16. It is submitted that earlier the Association of the Private Secretaries working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17885 of 1996 claiming that they were being paid salary in the scale of Rs.2000-3200 while the Private Secretaries working in the establishment of the High Court were getting the salary in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and since both the establishments have to be treated at par in accordance with the decision of the State Government itself, the same pay scale be made applicable to them. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.7.1998, with following observations:- "From the year 1988 all the employees, whether of the State Government or of the High Court, are getting the same pay scale as is admissible to the corresponding posts of the Central Government and the said decision was taken with effect from 1.1.1986, according to the report of Equivalence Committee, U.P. In view of the fact that ever since the issuance of the Government order dated 11.9.1974 the employees working in the High Court as well as the employees working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers were being treated similarly in the matter of post and pay scale etc., we are of the view that the petitioners are also entitled to the same pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 as carrying on the same work and possess the same qualification. The method of recruit is also similar. The non-payment of the same salary to the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as well as assigned to Article 39(D) of the Constitution. The method of recruit is also similar. The non-payment of the same salary to the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as well as assigned to Article 39(D) of the Constitution. It is directed to the respondents to fix the salary of the Private Secretaries working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow in the revised pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 from the date of filing of this writ petition. We have refrained ourselves from granting the same pay scale to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1986 because it will cost a great burden on the Government. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is allowed." 17. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment was subjected to challenge before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1999 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Private Secretaries Brotherhood and ors) and the same was dismissed on 28.11.2007. Again, the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred a Review Petition (C) No.877 of 2008 in the said Civil Appeal and the same was also dismissed on 23.7.2008. The judgment inter parties i.e. State and the Private Secretaries working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers had become final. The employees working in the Office of U.P. State Law Officers at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow are entitled to be treated similarly vis-a-vis the employees working in the establishment of this Court on the corresponding posts as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.17885 of 1996 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1999. 18. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel, has vehemently placed reliance and reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit dated 25.8.2017 filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 sworn by Arun Kumar Rai, Under Secretary, Law Department, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow, wherein it has been stated that so far as the employees of the State Government, who were appointed on any post on 1.1.2006 or after 1.1.2006, is concerned, the right of exercising the option in the matter, given in the paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the counter affidavit, is not available to them. The employees of the said category will be entitled to receive their salary only in the revised pay structure, which was made effective with effect from 01.1.2006 by means of the Government order dated 8.12.2008. From the documents brought on record in the shape of annexures filed alongwith the present writ petition, it is evident that the petitioners were not in the employment of the State Government at the relevant date i.e. 01.1.2006 and thereafter, the pay of the petitioners was not to be revised according to the Government order dated 8.12.2008, rather the payment of salary of the petitioners was to be made in the Pay Band/Grade Pay as mentioned in the revised pay structure, which was made effective from 01.1.2006 by the Government order dated 8.12.2008 treating them to have been appointed on the post carrying the Pay Band/Grade Pay as against the post of the concerned category. Admittedly, the petitioners came in the government service on 05.1.2006/6.1.2006. 19. It is submitted that the petitioners were promoted to the post of Personal Assistant on 10.7.2006. The petitioner no.1 had assumed the charge of the post of Personal Assistant after his promotion on 15.3.2007. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were appointed after 01.1.2006 and thereafter they were promoted on the post of Personal Assistant in the month of July, 2006/March, 2007. The fixation of their pay is to be made according to the procedures laid down in paragraph no.11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008, wherein specific provision has been made by the State Government for fixation of the pay of such categories of employees. Para-11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008 specifically deals with the matter of pay fixation of those employees, who had been given promotion in the revised pay structure i.e., after the relevant cut-off date 1.1.2006. The fixation of pay of the petitioners after promotion on the post of Personal Assistant was to be made strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in para-11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008. The petitioners cannot be allowed to continue to draw the pay on the post of Stenographer in the unrevised pay scale. They are not entitled to claim that they should be allowed to continue to draw their pay on the post of Stenographer in the unrevised pay scale. The petitioners cannot be allowed to continue to draw the pay on the post of Stenographer in the unrevised pay scale. They are not entitled to claim that they should be allowed to continue to draw their pay on the post of Stenographer in the unrevised pay scale. Similarly, the petitioners are also not entitled to be given the option of making the choice that the fixation of the pay be made with regard to them in the revised pay structure only after their promotion from the post of Stenographer to the post of Personal Assistant. 20. It has been submitted that the Grade Pay of the post of the Additional Private Secretary of the office of U.P. State Law Officers, High Court, Allahabad/Lucknow was upgraded with effect from 01.1.2006. The petitioners were promoted on the post of Personal Assistant in the month of July, 2006/March, 2007 and therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of the upgraded Grade Pay of Personal Assistant by making the fixation of their salary on the said post in accordance with the provisions made in Para-11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008. In accordance with the provision of Para no.1 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008 the right to exercise the option was available only to those employees, who were working in the establishment of the High Court as on 01.01.2006. If any benefit of right to exercise the option has been provided to any employee of the establishment of the High Court, who came into service of the establishment of the High Court after 01.01.2006, the same is contrary to the provisions of Para no.11 of the Government order dated 8.12.2008. 21. By the Government order dated 24.12.2009 a provision has been made for fixation of the pay regarding those posts wherein the pay scales were upgraded after 01.1.2006 and by the Government order dated 29.6.2019 the provision has been made for providing opportunity to fill up the revised option form for the said category of posts. The provisions of the Government orders dated 24.12.2009 and 29.6.2010 are not applicable to those posts, wherein the pay scales were upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The post of Additional Private Secretary has been upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and as such, the provision of the said Government orders are not applicable to the petitioners. The provisions of the Government orders dated 24.12.2009 and 29.6.2010 are not applicable to those posts, wherein the pay scales were upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The post of Additional Private Secretary has been upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and as such, the provision of the said Government orders are not applicable to the petitioners. According to the provisions of the Government order dated 29.6.2010 they were not entitled to be allowed to fill up the revised option form. The petitioners were given appointment for the first time after 01.01.2006, therefore, they cannot be permitted to avail the opportunity to exercise the option in the revised pay structure. It has been submitted that the grant of parity to the petitioners does not mean that if any benefit has been given to the employees of the High Court in a wrongful manner, contrary to the provisions of the relevant rules, the same should also be made available to the petitioners and the procedure followed in the matter of concerned Review Officers of the High Court, cannot be followed in the matter of the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 22. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and also perused the documents provided by the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and finds that in the Office Order No.2556 dated 09.07.2008 issued by the establishment of this Court, which consists of 126 persons, the names of Santosh Kumar and Akhil Kumar Kureel find place at Sl. No.114 and 117 respectively by which they were for the first time appointed on the post of the Assistant Review Officer in the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad, i.e. much after 01.01.2006. Similarly, from the Office Order No.2302 dated 09.06.2009 it is evident that Sanjeev Kumar Mishra was allowed to join on the post of the Assistant Review Officer in the establishment of this Court. Thereafter, by the Office Order No.6542 dated 27.11.2010 the Assistant Review Officers namely Santosh Kumar and Akhil Kumar Kureel, were promoted on the posts of Review Officer in the establishment of this Court and their names find place at Sl. No. 63 and 67, respectively. Similarly, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra was also promoted from the post of Assistant Review Officer to the post of Review Officer by Office Order No.9594 dated 04.03.2011 in which his name has been mentioned at Sl. No. 63 and 67, respectively. Similarly, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra was also promoted from the post of Assistant Review Officer to the post of Review Officer by Office Order No.9594 dated 04.03.2011 in which his name has been mentioned at Sl. No. 3 in Column-B of the same. 23. From the service books of Santosh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Akhil Kumar Kureel, which have been brought on record as Annexure Nos. 29-A, 29-B and 29-C to the writ petition, it is evident that in pursuance of the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court, Allahabad dated 02.09.2011, the salary of the Review Officers of the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad namely Santosh Kumar, Akhil Kumar Kureel and Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, after assuming the charge of the post of Review Officer has been fixed at Rs.17,140/-which is the minimum of the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-+ Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-(i.e. minimum in the Pay Band Rs.12540 + Grade Pay of Rs.4600 = 17140/-). Similarly, from the perusal of the revised Pay Fixation of the Review Officers of establishment of the Court, Santosh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Akhil Kumar Kureel, it is evident that on assuming the charge of the post of Review Officer in the establishment of this Court the salary of Santosh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Akhil Kumar Kureel has been fixed at Rs.17,140/-which is the minimum of the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/-+ Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-(i.e. minimum in the Pay Band of Rs. 12540/-+ Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-=17,140/-). From the perusal of Annexure Nos. 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of the writ petition, which are the copy of the Revised Option Form of Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Akhil Kumar Kureel and Santosh Kumar, Review Officers of this Court, it is evident that in compliance of order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 02.09.2011 they opted their revised option in view of the 6th Pay Commission from the respective date of their promotion on the post of Review Officer. 24. Annexure No.32 of the writ petition, which is part of the information provided to the petitioner no. 24. Annexure No.32 of the writ petition, which is part of the information provided to the petitioner no. 2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, clearly shows that by its own letter dated 24.08.2011 the State Government had communicated its decision to the Registrar General of this Court along with the other Government Orders dated 29.06.2010 and 24.12.2009 that the salary of the concerned Review Officers of the High Court may be fixed and paid to them on the basis of which the concerned Review Officers have already been provided the minimum of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-, i.e. Rs.17,140/-. Similarly, from the minutes of the proceedings and deliberations etc. at various stages in between the establishment of the High Court and the concerned departments of the State Government, from time to time it is evident that whatever action has been taken in the establishment of the High Court for fixation of the salary of the concerned Review Officers of the establishment of High Court at Rs.17,140/-, which is the minimum of the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/-, the same is based upon the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court, Allahabad dated 02.09.2011 and the order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 02.09.2011 is based upon the own decision of the State Government contained in the relevant Government Orders issued from time to time, by the State Government itself. 25. The present writ petition has been filed for similar treatment in the matter of payment of salary to the petitioners at par with the comparable employees working in the establishment of this Court. The employees and officers working in the office of the U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow under the control of Advocate General, U.P., High Court, Allahabad, have been granted parity by the State Government in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other conditions of service with the employees and officers working in the establishment of this Court, Allahabad by means of Government Order dated 11.09.1974. Similarly, the employees and officers working in the establishment of High Court, Allahabad have been granted parity with the employees and officers of the U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow by means of the Government Order dated 20.03.1968. 26. Similarly, the employees and officers working in the establishment of High Court, Allahabad have been granted parity with the employees and officers of the U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow by means of the Government Order dated 20.03.1968. 26. The issue of grant of the parity to the employees of the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office by the Government Order dated 11.09.1974 with the employees and officers of the High Court, Allahabad, has already been settled by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 29th July, 1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996 (Private Secretaries Brotherhood & others vs. The State of U.P. & The Advocate General, U.P.), wherein the Division Bench, after considering the Government Orders issued from time to time, as well as the judgments of this Court passed in earlier writ petitions, recorded a categorical finding that the employees working in the office of U.P. State Law Officers both at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow, are entitled to be treated similarly with the employees working in this Court on the corresponding post. This judgment of the Division Bench was subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1999, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 28th November, 2007. The review application filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Review Petition (C) No. 877 of 2008 was also dismissed vide order dated 23rd July, 2008. 27. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment dated 29.07.1998 it is also evident that earlier the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow while allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 254 of 1984 filed by the State Law Officers’ Ministerial Staff Association, Allahabad/Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 31.03.1986 had held that the Government Order dated 11.09.1974 was issued to give effect to the provisions of Article 39 (d) read with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, while allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21815 of 1987 (State Law Officers' Ministerial Officers' Association and others vs. the State of U.P. and others) on 26.02.1988 the Division Bench of this Court held that the employees of the High Court, Allahabad and the employees of the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office are the same. Similarly, while allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21815 of 1987 (State Law Officers' Ministerial Officers' Association and others vs. the State of U.P. and others) on 26.02.1988 the Division Bench of this Court held that the employees of the High Court, Allahabad and the employees of the U.P. State Law Officers’ Office are the same. Both the said judgment and orders dated 31.03.1986 and 26.02.1988 have already been attained finality as the State Government had decided not to file any Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble the Supreme Court against the same. 28. The aforesaid Division Bench judgment dated 29.7.1998 passed in Private Secretaries Brotherhood's case (supra) was followed by this Court in Writ A No.40762 of 1996 (Personal Assistants Brotherhood, Office of U.P. State and another vs. State of UP and others) and learned Single Judge had proceeded to allow the writ petition on 23.5.2011 with following observations:- “From the aforesaid it is clear that the Chief Secretary was asked to file an affidavit justifying the non-payment of salary to the petitioners at par with Personal Assistants working in the establishment of this High Court with effect from the date of the institution of the writ proceedings. The Court found that such parity in fact has been provided w.e.f. 21.06.2007. A pointed query was made as to what has happened between the date of filing of the writ petition and 21.06.2007 on the basis whereof such parity could be refused from the date as has been prayed in this petition. Today an affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary and it has been stated that in respect of all the three issues so framed i.e. a, b and c, there has been no change between 16.12.1996 to 21.06.2007. Except for reiterating what has been stated earlier, no fresh material has been brought on record which can lead to a conclusion that the State is justified in not granting the parity in the pay scale from the date the writ petition was filed i.e. 16.12.1996 as has been done in the case of Private Secretaries Brotherhood & others vs. The State of U.P. & The Advocate General, U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996). Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996). Since there is absolutely no justification forthcoming from the State to deny such parity from the date aforesaid and it being an admitted position that the present petitioners have been granted the said parity from 31.07.2007, this Court finds little or no justification to refuse such parity to the petitioners from the date of the institution of this writ petition like in the case of Private Secretaries Brotherhood & others (Supra) i.e. from 16.12.1998. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the pay-scale to the members of petitioners' brotherhood at par with those working on the similar posts in the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad, w.e.f. 16.12.1996. Arrears in that regard may be released within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned.” 29. The State of Uttar Pradesh had assailed the said judgment passed by learned Single Judge by preferring Special Appeal No.1298 of 2011 (State of UP and another vs. Personal Assistants Brotherhood, Office of U.P. & another) and a Division Bench of this Court had proceeded dispose of the Special Appeal on 14.8.2018 with following directions:- “The submission of the petitioners before learned Single Bench was that employees working in the Office of U.P. State Law Officers at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow are entitled to be treated similarly vis-a-vis the employees working in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the corresponding posts as held by a Division Bench of this Court that came to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1999. The Division Bench held that the Members of the respondent-petitioners' Brotherhood are required to be treated at par with the employees working in the High Court at Allahabad on the corresponding posts. In spite of the judgment aforesaid, the Government of Uttar Pradesh did not extend the pay-scales applicable for the Members of the respondent-petitioner's Brotherhood at par with the employees of the High Court. During pendency of the writ petition, the pay-scale aforesaid was allowed but w.e.f. 31.07.2007. Learned Single Bench after considering the entire issue arrived at the conclusion that Members of the respondent-petitioner's Brotherhood are also entitled for grant of the pay-scales concerned w.e.f. 16.12.1996. During pendency of the writ petition, the pay-scale aforesaid was allowed but w.e.f. 31.07.2007. Learned Single Bench after considering the entire issue arrived at the conclusion that Members of the respondent-petitioner's Brotherhood are also entitled for grant of the pay-scales concerned w.e.f. 16.12.1996. A direction, thus, was issued accordingly with entitlement of the Members of the respondent-petitioner's Brotherhood for arrears accruing on grant of the pay-scales w.e.f. the date referred above. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-State is that Single Bench erred while awarding the arrears to the Members of the respondent-petitioner's Brotherhood. It is stated that issue with regard to the entitlement of the pay-scale with parity to the employees of the High Court is pending consideration and that consume some time, therefore, no need was there to award the arrears. Having considered the arguments advanced, we deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by learned Single Bench to the extent of grant of arrears accrued. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with directions as under:- 1. The members of the respondent-petitioners' Brotherhood shall be entitled for grant of pay-scales applicable to the employees working with the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the corresponding posts w.e.f. 16.12.1996. 2. Such employees shall be entitled for fixation of their pay in the pay-scale aforesaid on notional basis uptil 31.07.2007. 3. The pay of the employees concerned shall be revised accordingly and they shall also be entitled for revision of pay-scales at par with the employees of the High Court holding the posts corresponding. 4. The members of the respondent-petitioners' Brotherhood shall be entitled for arrears, if any, accruing to them subsequent to 31.07.2007, the date from which the appellant-State decides to grant the pay-scale at par with the High Court's employees.” 30. Admittedly the petitioners joined the post in question after 1.1.2006, whereas similarly situated employees of the establishment of this Court were engaged in the year 2008. They were accorded promotion as Review Officer and they had been extended the said benefit. Admittedly the petitioners joined the post in question after 1.1.2006, whereas similarly situated employees of the establishment of this Court were engaged in the year 2008. They were accorded promotion as Review Officer and they had been extended the said benefit. All the employees working in the State Government or in the establishment of this Court are getting the same pay scale as is admissible to the corresponding posts of the Central Government and the said decision was taken with effect from 01.1.1986 according to the report of Equivalence Committee, U.P. The State Government failed to take into consideration the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government and to provide same pay scale to the petitioners as is admissible to their counterparts working in the establishment of this Court as well as the State Government. Consequently the reasons assigned in the impugned order, ignoring the said policy decision of the State Government, cannot be legally sustained. There has been complete non-application of the mind in not adhering the policy decision of the State Government providing for pay scales at par with the counterparts working in the establishment of this Court as well as to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P.S. & P.A. Brotherhood, High Court Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. & Others (Supra), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment passed in Writ A No.40762 of 1996. Therefore, the stand of the respondents is absolutely illegal and unjust. 31. In view of above the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 served on petitioner no.1 on 31.3.2017 through letter dated 22.3.2017 cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside. 32. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix and pay the salary of the petitioners in accordance with the fitment chart given in Schedule-I and Schedule-II attached with the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 with effect from the date of their promotion on the post of Personal Assistant at par with those working on the similar posts in the establishment of this Court. Arrears in that regard may be released within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned.