Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16705 of 2015
Petitioner :- Daya Ram Seth And 5 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Bhushan,Ashutosh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. By means of this writ petition petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 16.06.2014 passed by respondent 1 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition) rejecting application dated 21.04.2014 of petitioners with regard to payment of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 payable to Block Development Officer. A writ of mandamus has also been sought, claiming arrears of salary in pay scale of Block Development Officer and interest thereon.
2. Petitioners were given second promotional pay scale in the scale of Joint Block Development Officer. The grievance of petitioners is that they are entitled to second promotional pay scale in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 i.e. pay scale of Block Development Officer.
3. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that cadre of Joint Development Officer has been declared as dying cadre by Government order dated 25 May, 1999 and since petitioners had been getting first promotional pay scale since year 1998, they are entitled to second promotional pay scale payable on the post of Block Development Officer in the year 2003/2004 and 2006.
4. Having gone through record, we find that arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are wholly misconceived. Order dated 25.05.1999 declaring cadre of 'Joint Block Development Officer' as 'dying cadre', reads as under:
^^la[;k % 2363@38&1&99&2ih0@99 izs"kd] lsok esa] Jh jesUnz f=ikBh] fo'ks"k lfpo] m0iz0 'kkluA vk;qDr xzkE; fodkl foHkkx] m0iz0 y[kuÅA xzkE; fodkl vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ% fnukad % 25 ebZ] 99 fo"k;% la;qDr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh] laoxZ dk e`r laoxZ ?kksf"kr fd;k tkukA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k es eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd 'kklukns'k la[;k% ;w0vks0 46@38&6&88&12 ih0,l0@87 fnukad 23&06&1988 }kjk la;qDr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkfj;kas ds 244 vLFkkbZ inksa rFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k% 2171@28&8&89&3@14 rkeq0 1@97 fnukad 26-10-1988 }kjk ioZrh; {k s= e sa l a;qDr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkfj;k sa d s 32 vLFkk;h ink sa dk l`tu fd;k x;k FkkA bu inkas ij gkus s okys O;; dh 50 izfr'kr /kujkf'k Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk rFkk 'ks"k O;; jkT; ljdkj }kjk la;qDr :i ls ogu fd;k tkrk jgk gSA Hkkjr ljdkj l s bu ink sa ij gk su s okys O;; Hkkj dk s ogu djus l s euk dj fn;k gSA QyLo:i 'kklu }kjk bu ink sa dk s Hkj s tku s ij jk sd yxk nh x;h gSA
2- mi;qZDr fLFkfr esa lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr Jh jkT;iky la;qDr [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh laoxZ dks rkRdkfyd izHkko l s e`r ? kk sf "kr fd; s tku s d s vkn s'k iznku djrs gS aA
3- ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k% bZ&2&1083@,Dl&90 fnukad 22-9-99 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSaA “No.: 236338-1-99-2 P/99 From, Shri Ramendra Tripathi, Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. To, The Commissioner, Department of Rural Development, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
Hkonh;] g0v0 ¼jkesUnz f=ikBh½ fo'ks"k lfpoA Rural Development Section-I Lucknow : Dated 25th May 1999 Sub: Declaring the cadre of Joint Block Development Officer to be non-existent.
Sir, In connection with the aforesaid subject, I have been directed to say that 244 temporary posts of Joint Block Development Officers were created vide Government Order No. U.O. 46/38-6-88-12 P.S./87 dated 23.06.1988, and 32 temporary posts of Joint Block Development Officers in the hill region vide Government Order No. 2171/28-8-89-3/14 Tamu. 1/97 dated 26.10.1988. The expenses being incurred on these posts have been borne jointly by the Government of India and the State Government in the ratio of 50% each. The Government of India has refused to bear the expenses being incurred on these posts. As a result, the government has stopped recruitments to these posts.
2. In the aforesaid situation, His Excellency The Governor, after due consideration, orders to declare the cadre of Joint Block Development Officer to be dying cadre with immediate effect.
3. This order is being issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department received vide its unofficial letter no. E-2-1083/X-90 dated 22.09.1999.
Sincerely yours, Sd/- (Illegible) (Ramendra Tripathi) Special Secretary (English translation by court)
5. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 sworn by Sri R.U. Dwivedi it is stated that State Government had framed Rules known as “Uttar Pradesh Gramya Vikas Vibhag (Rajpatrit) Adhikari Sewa Niyamawali, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1991”) and another set of Rules, “Uttar Pradesh Samyukt Khand Vikas Adhikari (Arajpatrit) Sewa Niyamawali, 1992” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1992”). The aforesaid Rules were amended from time to time. In para 11 it is specifically stated that Rules 1991 and 1992 framed under Proviso to Article 309 are still in force and holding the field. The next promotional pay scale admissible to “Assistant Development Officer” as per aforesaid Rules is the pay scale of “Joint Block Development Officer”. Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
“That as stated hereinabove that both the Rules, 1991 and Rules, 1992 are still in force and holding the fields after being framed under proviso to Article 309. From perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that between the cadre of Assistant Development Officer (I.S.B.) and Block Development Officer, the cadre of Joint Block Development Officer came into existence by the statutory provisions of Rules, 1992. The next promotional pay scale therefore admissible to Assistant Development Officer (I.S.B.) is the pay scale of the Joint Block Development Officer and not the pay scale of the Block Development Officer.”
6. Learned counsel for petitioner could not give any reply to query, when in between the cadre of Assistant Development Officer and Block Development Officer, cadre of Joint Development Officer still exists, how petitioners could be given second promotional pay scale in the cadre of of Block Development Officer, by-passing the pay scale of Joint Development Officer. So, long as the Rules are not amended, no request or prayer of petitioners which is not consistent with the Rules can be accepted or allowed. More so, we are of the view that Government Order dated 25th May 1999 only provides that further recruitment on the post of Joint Block Development Officer is being stopped as the cadre of Joint Block Development Officer is declared as dying cadre. It does not mean that existing officers working on the post of Joint Block Development Officer would stand terminated, since declaration of a cadre as dying cadre does not mean abolition of post immediately but it means that in future when the post will fall vacant, it will not be filled in and will then stand abolished. In the present case, we are concerned not with appointment and recruitment on the post of Joint Block Development Officer, but in view of service rendered for a particular period, the question of higher promotional pay scale as per concerned Government order is under consideration. Admittedly petitioners were working as Gram Vikas Adhikari and having worked for certain period as per relevant Government order they were allowed first promotional pay scale in the cadre of Assistant Block Development Officer and now they are claiming second promotional scale, which as and when fell down, could be allowed in the cadre of next existing promotional pay scale. Rendering service on the substantive post of Gram Vikas Adhikari for certain period does not mean or entitle promotion and appointment on higher post but incumbent would continues to hold substantive post which in the present case is Gram Vikas Adhikari and it is a matter of only promotional pay scale that purpose since the post of Joint Block Development Officer cadre is still existing and pay scale is also available, petitioners cannot claim second promotional pay scale in the cadre of Block Development Officer by seeking jump over pay scale of Joint Block Development Officer.
7. Impugned order, therefore, rejecting claims of petitioners for second promotional pay scale in the cadre of Block Development Officer does not suffer from any illegality and hence warrants no interference.
8. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Vikram