Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18401 of 2008 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Kesharwani,Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- M.K. Kushwaha
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was initially appointed as Jeep Driver in 1980, his services came to be regularized with effect from 1 March 1998. Thereafter, petitioner was taken in Group-B Grade with effect from 1 April 1987 and thereafter regularized with effect from 1 March 1992. Thereafter vide order dated 15 November 2004 passed by the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation on the basis of the order/computation dated 4 August 2004 certain recoveries were sought to be made from the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner instituted a writ petition being Writ-A No. 2288 of 2005 which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 8 July 2005. Operative portion of the order reads thus:
"Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances the orders dt. 4.8.2004, 6.8.2004 and 15.11.2004 passed by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 3 Manager (Karmik-III) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the observation made hereinabove and after treating the petitioner to have been kept in group 'B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985 instead of 1.4.1987. The said decision shall be taken by the respondents No. 3 as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 3.
The writ petition stands allowed with cost. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court on two occasions, the cost assessed by this Court in Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) which shall be paid to the petitioner within three weeks."
Pursuant thereof, the fourth respondent, Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation, recomputed the entitlement of the petitioner which is in a tabular form w.e.f. 1 April 1985 to 31 December 2004.
The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned computation (annexure-8 to the writ petition). It is urged that the entries particularly in respect of basic and grand total has been wrongly shown in the impugned chart. For instance, it is urged that the revision of pay w.e.f. 1 January 1986 granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11 August 1994 reflects that the petitioner was receiving on 1 April 1987 basic pay at Rs. 764.20/- and pursuant to the revision pay fixed as on 1 April 1987 is at Rs. 950/-. Whereas, in the impugned chart on 1 April 1987 shows that the petitioner was drawing basic pay at Rs. 950/-, whereas, from the document dated 30 November 1994 (annexure-9 to the writ petition), the petitioner was drawing Rs. 764/-/ Hence it is urged that computation on the face of it is erroneous prepared on wrong facts. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the document at annexure-10 to the writ petition, wherein, it has been shown that the petitioner was drawing basic at Rs. 892.10/- w.e.f. 31 October 1988, whereas, the impugned chart shows that the petitioner was drawing Rs. 970/- basic. Similar is the case with document placed at annexure-11 to the writ petition where the basic has been shown at Rs. 3,874/- paid to the petitioner until 30 September 1998 whereas the impugned chart shows payment at Rs. 2,200/- towards basic. This fact the petitioner has tried to substantiate by placing on record the extracts of the Provident Fund Account where the deductions at Rs. 10% is 220/- which is based on the basic at Rs. 2,200/- as is being claimed by the petitioner. Further petitioner has brought on record the arrears chart completed by him showing the entitlement which the petitioner claims.
Prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case placing reliance on the documents which belong to the respondents to substantiate that there is serious anomalies and errors that has crept into the impugned chart.
Sri M.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned chart shall be revisited in light of the arrears chart filed by the petitioner along with the rejoinder affidavit, and the authorities shall take a decision thereon and in case there is any error, the same shall be rectified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner presently is aged over 80 years, the matter requires to be considered and decided urgently.
In view thereof, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is provided that petitioner shall file a representation along with the copies of the writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit before the fourth respondent within 15 days from date. It is expected that the fourth respondent shall revisit the matter and take a fresh decision with regard to the impugned computation (annexure-8 to the writ petition) after taking into consideration the documents and material placed on record by the petitioner including the arrears chart prepared by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing of representation along with the certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
No cost.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 S.Prakash