Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9786 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahadeo Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kirit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3.
By the impugned order the claim of the petitioner for grant of revised regular pay scale has been rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the juniors of the petitioner are getting salary of Rs. 18,100/- from July 2009 but the petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 11,630/- and the petitioner was entitled for arrears of Rs. 9,17,149/- as per pay scale of Rs. 14,700/-. Submission is that the order passed by the special appellate court has not been applied in its letter and spirit and merely the stand taken earlier has been reiterated, therefore, there is willful disobedience of the order of this court also. It was submitted that the order has been passed on report submitted by the Finance Controller of the Police Headquarter, who has given incorrect advice, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal and is liable to be quashed. It was submitted that the petitioner was retired from service on 31.1.2015 in pay scale of Rs. 11,960/- by incorrect fixation of regular scale and in case had the regular salary been correctly fixed, the petitioner would have retired in the pay scale of Rs. 22,550/- but this claim has been incorrectly rejected. It was further submitted that as provided by the order of the Special Appellate Court the effect of any other orders passed on 25.1.2019, 25.5.2015, 8.12.2009, 8.9.2009 and 27.5.2019 stands wiped of.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record.
Since several round of litigation has taken place before this Court, it would be appropriate to take note of all such orders.
The order dated 4.3.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 10595 of 2007 is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Ram Kirti Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order dated 25.03.2000 passed by the respondent no.2 the petitioner was reverted to the lowest pay scale for a period of three years and although the said period of three years lapsed on 24.03.2003, the respondents have not restored the petitioner's regular pay scale.
A prayer has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent no.3 directing him to restore the petitioner's regular pay scale.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent without disputing the factual position has very fairly stated that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.3.2000 passed by the respondent no.2 is quashed. The respondent no.3 is directed to grant regular pay scale admissible to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.3.2003 which is the date on which the period of three years for which the petitioner had been reverted to the lowest pay scale, lapsed. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondent no.3 within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order the salary of the petitioner was fixed vide order dated 8.12.2009, which is Annexure-3 to the petition.
Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 23774 of 2010 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2015, which is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Ram Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner was a constable working with the U.P. Police who retired as Head Constable.
On 25.03.2000 an order was passed reverting the petitioner to the lowest pay-scale for a period of three years. On the expiry period of three years, the respondents failed to restore the petitioner to the regular pay-scale. He filed a writ petition challenging the reversion order dated 25.03.2000. In the meantime as the period of reversion of three years had expired it was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2009 with the direction to grant regular pay-scale admissible to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.03.2003.
In pursuance of the above, the impugned order has been passed on 08.12.09 and the petitioner's salary in the relevant pay-scale has been fixed.
Challenging the aforesaid order the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been granted the regular pay-scale to which he was entitled on the expiry of three years of reversion period i.e. w.e.f. 25.03.2003.
It is not clear from the pleadings or even from the impugned order that the regular pay-scale has not been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.03.03.
The grant or non-grant of the regular pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from above date requires consideration of factual aspects which is beyond the domain of the writ court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter as to whether the petitioner has been granted the regular pay-scale w.e.f.25.03.2003 or not and to pass a reasoned and a speaking order afresh ignoring the impugned order dated 08.12.2009 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh vide order dated 27.5.2015, which is Annexure-6 to the petitioner.
The petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 21654 of 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.1.2019, which is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel.
This petition assails the order dated 8 December 1999 and 27 May 2015 in terms of which the prayer of the petitioner for revision of the pay band in which he was placed with effect from 25 March 2003 has been negatived.
In an earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had preferred Writ A No. 23774 of 2010 seeking similar relief. Before this Court at that stage, the petitioner had contended that he had wrongly been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3950/- as on 25 March 2003. The learned Judge who disposed of the said petition noted the rival submissions in the following terms:
"On 25.03.2000 an order was passed reverting the petitioner to the lowest pay-scale for a period of three years. On the expiry period of three years, the respondents failed to restore the petitioner to the regular pay-scale. He filed a writ petition challenging the reversion order dated 25.03.2000. In the meantime as the period of reversion of three years had expired it was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2009 with the direction to grant regular pay-scale admissible to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.03.2003.
In pursuance of the above, the impugned order has been passed on 08.12.09 and the petitioner's salary in the relevant pay-scale has been fixed.
Challenging the aforesaid order the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been granted the regular pay-scale to which he was entitled on the expiry of three years of reversion period i.e. w.e.f. 25.03.2003.
It is not clear from the pleadings or even from the impugned order that the regular pay-scale has not been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.03.03.
The grant or non-grant of the regular pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from above date requires consideration of factual aspects which is beyond the domain of the writ court."
The writ petition was ultimately disposed of with the following operative directions:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter as to whether the petitioner has been granted the regular pay-scale w.e.f.25.03.2003 or not and to pass a reasoned and a speaking order afresh ignoring the impugned order dated 08.12.2009 as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of."
It is pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on the aforementioned writ petition that the impugned order has come to be passed.
The submission of the learned counsel was that pursuant to the order of punishment he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3950/-. According to the petitioner once the period of punishment came to an end, he was entitled to be placed in the pay scale as existing on that date.
Undisputedly the order of punishment operated between 25 March 2000 to 24 March 2003. It is in that backdrop that the date of 25 March 2003 assumes significance. The claim raised by the petitioner was for being placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 on that date. This claim itself rests on a Government Order appended as Anexure-7 which principally embodies the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission.
Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to page 75 of the paperbook referring to the Government Order 8 December 2008 to submit that the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 had been revised to Rs. 5200-20200. According to him, it is in the latter band of pay that the petitioner should have been placed in on 25 March 2003. However as is evident from the Government Order referred to above and more particularly paragraph 2 thereof, the revised pay scales were to come into effect from 1 January 2006.
Consequently the Court finds no error in the placement of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3950 as on 25 March 2003. The writ petition fails and is dismissed."
By the aforesaid order dated 25.1.2019 the claim of the petitioner was specifically rejected and it was held that there is no error in the placement of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3950/- as on 25.3.2003.
It appears that the petitioner pressed his claim for revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in place of pay scale of Rs. 3900-5490 despite punishment of reversion which operated between 25.3.2000 to 24.3.2003 before the special appellate court.
Consequently, the special appellate court in Special Appeal No. 219 of 2019 passed following order dated 21.2.2019:-
"The petitioner appellant appears to be entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200 w.e.f. 1st January 2006 in place of pay scale of Rs. 3,900- 5490 despite punishment of reversion which operated between 25th March 2000 to 24th March 2003. The claim of the petitioner appellant to this effect has been rejected by the writ Court.
Learned Standing counsel submits that it would be appropriate, if a fresh order is permitted to be passed by the authority concerned dealing with the above aspect of the matter.
In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal with the direction to the superintendent of Police, Azamgarh to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner appellant afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made herein above most expeditiously, preferably within next two months.
The impugned orders dated 25.1.2019, 25.5.2015 and 8.12.2009 are accordingly set aside and the orders dated 8.9.2009 and 27.5.2015 are quashed.
The appeal is disposed of and the writ petition stands allowed."
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the order impugned herein dated 26.4.2019 has been passed.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have already been noted above.
On perusal of record I find that after the direction of the special appellate court the case of the petitioner was re-considered and the pay scale of the petitioner was revised upward and he was granted scale of Rs. 10,300/- in place of Rs. 8,690/- and subsequently further revised pay scale was fixed and ultimately the petitioner was retired from the pay scale of Rs. 14,960.
It is also noticeable that the petitioner was granted punishment in departmental proceeding vide order dated 25.3.2000 by which he was reverted to minimum of the pay scale for three years. It is not in dispute that the said order has become final and the order of punishment remain effective.
In such view of the matter, claim of the petitioner for upward revision, which has been provided to his colleagues of the same batch, is misconceived. The pay scale of the petitioner has been revised taking into account the punishment awarded to the petitioner and the special appellate court order was taken into consideration by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order and the mistake, if any, was corrected and pay scale of the petitioner was revised upward.
This Court is of the opinion that since the order of punishment dated 25.3.2000 was never set aside and became final and thus, remain effective, therefore, even if the special appellate court quashed the orders in respect of fixation of pay, if the claim of the petitioner is accepted it will amount to nullyfying the impact of the punishment order.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned herein. Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Lalit Shukla