Heard Smt. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
The petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to pay the arrear of salary to the petitioners providing the actual benefit of the revised pay scales as per the recommendations of VI Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along with interest as per prevailing market rate.
(b). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 11.03.2010 along with interest as per the prevailing market rate expeditiously or within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opp. parties to make payment of arrears of pensionary benefits i.e. difference of pensionary benefits after revision of their pay from 01.01.2006 till the actual pay revision implemented w.e.f. 12.03.2010 in U.P. Jal Nigam along with payment of interest as per prevailing market rate."
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam (hereinafter referred to as, the Nigam) and are entitled for the benefit of sixth pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as is being provided to the State Government employees.
It is further contended that the Nigam has two sets of employees, where one belongs to the Nigam and other is the employees of erstwhile L.S.G.D. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti & others reported in (2013) 3 UPLBEC 2125 has held that employees of erstwhile L.S.G.D and the employees directly recruited by the Nigam are at par and entitled for the benefit of regulation 31 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulation, 1978 since learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the petitioners in the present petition were superannuated engineers of the Jal Nigam.
It is further contended that the employees of erstwhile L.S.G.D have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11991 (S/S) of 2017 ( Kamesh Srivastava & 5 others Vs. the State of U.P.) for providing the benefit of sixth pay commission. It has been allowed by this court vide its judgment and order dated 27.02.2020. A Special Appeal (Defective) No. 276 of 2020 has been preferred by the State Government against the said judgment, which has been dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 09.11.2020.
It is further contended that the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of grant of sixth pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It has been granted to erstwhile L.S.G.D employees particularly after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand Chakrawarti (Supra) in which, it has been held that erstwhile L.S.G.D. employees are at par with the employees directly appointed in the Nigam (the present petitioners).
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the petitioners were appointed as Engineers in the Jal Nigam and are therefore covered by Regulation 31 of U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers Service (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the case of the petitioners are identical to the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11991 (S/S) of 2017 and squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 except that the present petitioners are directly recruited employees of the Nigam. This however, cannot be a ground to discriminate against the petitioners for the purposes of payment of benefit of sixth pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
Since the point involved is short and squarely covered by the earlier decisions of this court as well as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is finally decided at this stage itself allowing the writ petition with direction to the respondents that petitioners shall also be given benefit as admissible to the petitioners by judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 11991 (S/S) of 2017.
Writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Gautam