Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.P. UPADHAYAYA versus THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.P. Upadhayaya v. The Secretary Food And Civil Supplies & Others - WRIT - A No. 34738 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 8448 (26 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and decide his representation in respect of fixation of the pay-scale as on 18.3.68, 25.4.68, 15.1.69, 27.4.73 onwards. Further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award special increment. w.e.f. 27.4.1996 to which the petitioner is entitled after 4 years of granting of promotional scale which was granted to him w.e.f. 27.4.92.

The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Marketing Inspector on 1.12.1964 and continued till 18.3.1968 without any interruption in pay scale of Rs.150-350 and was getting the basic salary of Rs.240/-. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Senior Marketing Inspector was made under the direct recruitment quota. After completion of one-year service with the department, it was desirable that the respondents should regularize the services of the petitioner after taking consent from the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad. But it was not done and his services were discontinued, though several posts of Senior Marketing Inspector were vacant when the petitioner's services were discontinued but the petitioner was not retained on the said post. Later on without any application the Regional Food Controller has offered an appointment to the petitioner on the post of Marketing Inspector. As the petitioner was unemployed as such, he accepted the said post. As soon as the petitioner joined as Marketing Inspector, he made a representation to this effect and the petitioner was again posted as Senior Marketing Inspector w.e.f. 25.4.1968 but the said appointment came to an end on 15.1.1969. Thereafter on 27.4.1973 the petitioner was again appointed on the post of Senior Marketing Inspector and he had continued till 31.1.2000 and he retired from the said post. It has further been mentioned that on 18.3.1968 when his services as Senior Marketing Inspector for the first time discontinued, the petitioner was getting the basic salary of Rs.240/- but when he was again appointed on the post of Senior Marketing Inspector on 25.4.1968, he was given the pay scale of 150-350 w.e.f. 11.4.1973. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the Government Policy an employee after reposting on the same post should not be given less pay than what he was getting at the time of earlier posting. As such, the petitioner was entitled at least Rs.240/- when he was posted on 25.4.1968 and his pay fixation ought to have been made in pursuance of the revised pay scale which came into force from time to time, but the pay scale of the petitioner was not fixed.The petitioner submits that the petitioner made several representations and now the petitioner has already retired but the respondents have not paid any heed and are not calculating the earlier services rendered by the petitioners.

The petitioner has further submitted that similar controversy has attained the attention of the Court in Writ Petition No. 137 of 2000 Satyendra Prasad Vs. R.F.C. and others decided on 26.9.2002 and in Writ petition No.603 of 2003, Hirdai Shankar Lal vs. The Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies) decided on 15.3.2005.

Notices were issued and a counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that the petitioner was made permanent on the post of Marketing Inspector on 20.6.1974, as such the petitioner was entitled for regular increment of pay admissible to the petitioner from that date. The petitioner was given time scale on 27.4.1986 and on 27.4.92, he was given promotional pay scale and the final fixation of salary was made in accordance with rules -vide order of the Assistant Regional Food Controller, Agra dated 25.7.2002. It has also been stated in para 10 of the said counter affidavit that the petitioner was placed under suspension many times during his service and was awarded adverse entries. A document to this effect has also been annexed with the counter affidavit. The petitioner was given increment on 1.7.1997 before his suspension. Thereafter his increments were stopped and punishment was awarded to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding considering all the relevant facts. In such situation the respondents submit that there is no illegality in fixation of the pay of the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. As the simple prayer made in the present writ petition is to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, as such the present writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. It is provided that if the petitioner submits a detailed and comprehensive representation before respondent no.3 within a month along with a copy of the aforesaid judgments, respondent no.3 is directed to consider the same according to law and shall pass a detailed and reasoned order within a period of two moths from the date of submission of the aforesaid representation.

It is made clear that if there is some recovery, that will not be enforced till the decision of the representation.  

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

26.4.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No 34738 of 2002


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.