Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU LAL versus THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu Lal v. The Irrigation Department And Others - WRIT - A No. 5976 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 7599 (25 April 2007)

 

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

Court no. 26

                                                                                                  A.F.R.

                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5976 of 1996

  Babu Lal                         versus   The Irrigation Department, U.P.

                                                       U.P. Lucknow and others

                                                       

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

          The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Pattern Maker on daily wage basis on 21.1.1976 in the Irrigation Work shop, Jhansi and his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.7.79.

The pay scale for the post of Pattern Maker was Rs. 825-1200, which has been revised to Rs.1400-2300 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and was payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986 but this revised pay is not being paid to him.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18018 of 1996, Babu Lal Versus The Irrigation Department and others. The High  Court without going into the merits of the case  in the writ petition vide order dated 22.5.1996 directed respondent no.2, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Kanpur Division, Kanpur to decide the representation of the petitioner by means of speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 22.5.1996 the representation of the petitioner was decided by the impugned order dated 14.10.2006 which has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The impugned order dated 14.10.2006 is as under-

^^ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuxZr  eSUMel vkns'k fnukad 22&5&96 ds vuqikyu esa vkids izR;kosnu fnukad 2&4&96 ,oaa 11&7&96 ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS fd vkidks iSVuZ esdj ch xszM ds in ij iqujhf{kr osrueku tks izeq[k vfHk;Urk ¿lTtk ,oa lkexzh izcU/k�? flapkbZ foHkkx mRrj izns'k y[kum ds dk;kZy; Kki la0 6203@la0 ,oa lk0iz0 @Mcyw&369 ¿Jfed�? fnukad 1&1&90 ds fuxZr vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj flapkbZ dk;Z'kkyk e.My&1 dkuiqj ds vUrZxr dk;Z'khy dk;Z'kkykvksa  esa vkS+|kSfxd  deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku iqujh{k.k ds lEcU/k esa fuxZr fd;s x;s gS  ds vuqikyu esa vkidks osru fn;k tk jgk gS A

  bl izdkj ls 'kklukns'k la[;k 1032@89&23 fl0 8@47v@89 fnukad 1-&8&89 ds }kjk fuxZr vkns'k dh ifjf/k esa vki ugha vkrs gS D;ksafd ;g 'kklukns'k vkS+|ksfxd vf/k"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw u gksdj fu;fer vf/k"Bku ij izHkkoh gksrs gS A

,slh fLFkfr esa vkidks mDr 'kklukns'k ds lyaXud&d ds dzekad&122 ij vafdr iqujhf{kr osrueku #0 1400&2300 ns; ugha gS vkidk izR;kosnu fnukad 2&4&96 ,oaa 11&7&96 bl izdkj vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS A

                                 g0 vLi"V

                              v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk

                              flpkbZ dk;Z'kkyk

                                 dkuiqj&4 ^^"

  From perusal of the aforesaid order dated 14.10.2006 it is apparent that respondent no.2, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Workshop, Kanpur Divison, Kanpur has refused the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 of the post of Pattern maker w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to the petitioner on the following two grounds-

(a) The petitioner is being paid the salary of post of Pattern Maker Grade ''B" as it is provided in the order dated 1.1.1990 issued by the Chief Engineer (Sajja and Samagri), U.P. Lucknow. Thus the first reason taken by respondent no.1 refusing the pay scale of the petitioner of Rs.1400-2300 is totally illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.

(b)  The second ground for refusal of the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 to the petitioner is that Government Order dated 10.8.1989 issued by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government is not applicable to the petitioner as according to the respondents this G.O. is not applicable to the Industrial establishment and is applicable to the employees of regular establishment only.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is only one scale and one grade of the post of Pattern Maker which is apparent from sl. No. 122 of the Annexure-''Ka' annexed with the Government Order dated 10.8.89 issued by the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government to the Chief Engineer Irrigation Department U.P. Lucknow by which the revised pay scale at column no. 8 has been accepted by the Government with effect from 1.1.1986.

             It is further submitted that letter dated 1.1.90 issued by respondent no.1 neither specifies the post of Pattern maker and nor the Grade ''B' thereof, hence, respondent no.1 could not have issued the letter by refusing to the pay scale and grade of the said post contrary to the Government Order dated 10.8.1989 issued by Chief Engineer. The said interpretation by respondent no.2 is totally incorrect, misconceived and is illegal.

               He then submits that the Government order does not speak at all as to whether it is applicable to the regular establishment or to the industrial establishment. The Government Order dated 10.8.89 specifically mentions that the pay scale of the different posts shown in column 2 of the Annexure is revised and the same is payable w.e.f.1st January, 1989. It is stated that the order dated 14.10.1996 passed by respondent no.2 is totally contrary to the Government Order dated 10.8.89 and the view taken by respondent no.2 is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

 It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in the year 1979 the pay scales of Industry labour has been revised and therefore, the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs.330-495 up to 31 Dec.1985 and that the petitioner was appointed as Industrial Labour on the post Pattern Maker on 21.1.1976 @ Rs.175/- per month in the Industrial Workshop and the petitioner has never been regularized on the aforesaid post as a State employee.

He also submits that the pay scale of Industrial Labour was again revised and accordingly the petitioner's pay was fixed as Rs. 825-1200, but the petitioner was claiming the regular salary of State employee of Pattern Maker which was not possible because the petitioner was appointed in grade of Industrial Labour and that the Government Order regarding the State employee of Irrigation Workshop is not applicable on the petitioner because the petitioner is a Industrial labour and is getting revised salary as was fixed by the Government, hence his claim to get salary of State employee is break and according to Industrial Rules it is not possible.

It is further submitted that the revised pay scale of State employee of Pattern Maker is different but the pay scale for the post of Pattern Maker of Industrial employee was again revised on 1.8.91 and accordingly the petitioner is getting his revised salary and Industrial Pattern Maker since 1 August, 1991 and that in the Irrigation Workshop two types of employees are working; in one type the employees who are working are getting salary fixed by the State Government and the second type of employees are the Industrial labour whose salary has been fixed by the Chief Engineer (Sajja and Samagri Management) Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow honouring the Government Order for the employees of the Workshop and since the petitioner was appointed as an Industrial Labour in the Irrigation Workshop and he has never been regularized as the State employee, therefore, he is not entitled for the scale of State employee as claimed by him.

It is next submitted that the respondents can not release the salary of the Industrial labour salary of the State employee and the petitioner is wrongly claiming the salary of the regularized State employee on the basis of Government Order which is not applicable on him and that only State employees working on the post of Pattern Maker are getting the salary according to Government Order by the Industrial labour working at any post are not entitled for the scale claimed by the petitioner.

            That in the Government Order dated 10.8.1989 there is a post of Pattern Maker shown at sl. No. 123 and there is only one grade and one scale of the post of Pattern Maker and as such the respondents cannot legally deny the pay scale of the Pattern Maker on which the petitioner is working. The petitioner is the only Pattern Maker at Irrigation Workshop Jhansi.

     There is no justification to deny the pay scale of the post on which the petitioner is working and further it is also illegal not to revise the pay scale of the employees of the Irrigation Workshop while scale of the other employees of Irrigation Department is revised and are being paid the salary on the revised pay scale.

   For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.  The respondents are directed to pay the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 to the petitioner and difference of revised pay scale, if not already paid w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with 9 % simple interest within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

           No order as to costs.

Dated 25.4.2007

CPP/-


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.