Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9149 of 2016 Petitioner :- Raghunath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran,Ravindra Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Indrabhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Shri Kartikeya Saran and Shri Ravindra Singh appear for respondent nos.4 and 7.
The petitioner is assailing the validity of the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.2, Cane Commissioner/Chairman, State Cane Service Authority, U.P. Lucknow as well as the order dated 12.1.2015 passed by the respondent no.3, Additional Cane Commissioner/Secretary, State Cane Service Authority, U.P. Lucknow. The request has also been made to issue direction to the respondent no.2 to make fixation of his salary in accordance with the 6th Pay Commission on the post of Cashier in the Pay Band-1 Rs.5200- 20200 Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- as per promotion order dated 29.8.2013 and thereby make payment of arrears together with interest @ 18% per annum.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant in the Cooperative Cane Development Society Ltd. Basti on 22.12.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Cashier on 29.8.2013 in the Pay Band-1 Rs.5200-20200 Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- alongwith other employees of different Cane Society situated in District Basti. Finally, he retired on 30.6.2014 from the post of Cashier after attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that similarly situated other incumbents, in whose favour promotion order has been passed, were transferred to another Cane Society and eventually in the said Cane Society, they have been accorded the benefits of Sixth Pay Commission but the petitioner has been denied the said benefit. The petitioner is also entitled for the aforesaid benefits and accordingly, his pension may also be revised on the basis of recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents have raised objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that at no point of time the petitioner while making the representation has asked for transfer and eventually, he retired from the Cane Society where the employees are still getting salary on the basis of 5th Pay Commission. The Cane Society is not in a position to pay the higher pay scale in response of 6th Pay Commission and as such, similar benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner.
Once the objection has been raised then the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant on 22.12.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Cashier on 29.8.2013 and retired on 30.6.2014 from the said post. So far as the benefit of 6th Pay Commission, which has been extended to the other similarly situated incumbents, is concerned, the same was accorded to the incumbents, who have been shifted to another Cane Society, wherein the benefit of 6th Pay Commission has also been accorded and accepted by the Society. At no point of time, the petitioner had asked for transfer and finally, he retired from the Cane Society where the employee is still getting salary on the basis of 5th Pay Commission. The Cane Society is not in a position to pay the higher pay scale in response of the 6th Pay Commission. In such situation the similar benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner.
The writ petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 RKP