Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Rajeev Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8789 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Ojha
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed to command the respondents to provide revised pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 to the petitioner since 4.8.1994, when the Nagar Palika Parishad, Moradabad got upgraded to Nagar Nigam, Moradabad. Various Government Orders have been placed before the Court in order to contend that petitioner is entitled to scale of pay admissible to an Assistant Cashier/Assistant Accountant, which is Rs.400-595 and subsequently stands revised to Rs.1200-1800 and now Rs.4000-6000.
The claim of petitioner is opposed by learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Brijesh Ojha, who submits that petitioner's appointment is on the post of Cash Clerk, which is a post in clerical cadre, and therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim salary admissible to an Assistant Accountant, which is a higher post carrying a higher scale of pay.
Perusal of the records would go to show that petitioner was initially appointed as Cash Clerk in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Moradabad in 1979. His services were later confirmed on 10th July, 1984. After the petitioner successfully crossed the efficiency bar, he was sanctioned Rs.400/- in the pay scale of Rs.340-550. According to petitioner the effect of order dated 31.7.1985 would be that he gets placed in the next higher scale of pay of Rs.400-595, and therefore subsequent revised pay scale would be admissible to him.
The argument advanced on behalf of petitioner is absolutely fallacious. Petitioner's appointment is on the post of Cash Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.340-550. Even when petitioner crossed the efficiency bar he continued to remain placed in the same scale of pay i.e. Rs.340-550. The designation of petitioner otherwise remained as Cash Clerk. The Government Order dated 14.2.1990, which has been placed by the petitioner provides for scale of pay admissible to different employees in the Accounts Section of Palika service. At serial no.64 is the post of Accounts Clerk for which the pay scale specified is Rs.360-620, which has been revised to Rs.975-1660. At serial no.63 is the post of Assistant Cashier in the pay scale of Rs.400-
595. The plea of petitioner that on account of Nagar Palika Parishad, Moradabad becoming Nagar Nigam, Moradabad on 4.8.1994, the post of Cash Clerk stood automatically upgraded to the post of Assistant Cashier/Assistant Accountant is not found to be based on any provision of law or applicable Government Order. The transition of Nagar Palika Parishad, Moradabad to the status of Nagar Nigam, Moradabad would not result in automatic upgradation of a post held substantively by the employee concerned. Petitioner's claim for higher pay scale on such ground, therefore, is not liable to be sustained. Petitioner's post continues to remain that of Cash Clerk and he would be entitled to be placed in the scale of pay meant for the post. The claim of petitioner for revision of his pay scale on such ground, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly consigned to records.
Dismissal of this petition, however, would not preclude the authorities from considering the claim of petitioner for grant of promotional pay scale under the ACP scheme, if the same is admissible to petitioner under the relevant Government Order.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Anil
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajeev Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 May, 2019
Judges
  • Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Advocates
  • Sanjeev Kumar Rai