Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE DIRECTOR, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE CULTURAL CENTRAL, ALLAHABAD versus DR. KRISHNA NAND & OTEHRS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Director, North Central Zone Cultural Central, Allahabad v. Dr. Krishna Nand & Otehrs - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 978 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15199 (1 September 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

Chief Justice's Court

Special Appeal No. 978 of 2006

The Director, North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad

Vs.

Dr. Krishna Nand and others

And

Special Appeal No. 979 of 2006

North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad and another

Vs.

Dr. Krishna Nand Pandey

*****

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. P.N. Saksena (Sr. Adv.)

Mr. Jagdeo Singh

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)

Mr. Upendra Upadhyay

*****

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Excepting for the date from which the benefits should be made available to the writ petitioner-respondent, we are in substantial agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C. Misra on the 11th of July, 2006, whereby his Lordship allowed the writ petition.

The writ petitioner was given a letter of appointment on the 24th of October, 1997 and there he was appointed against the post of an Assistant Programme Officer.

In the said letter he was, however, placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040.

It is the admitted position that at the material time, the post of Assistant Programme Officer was carrying a higher pay.

The writ application was filed in the year 2003. His Lordship has accorded benefits of the pay attached to the post of an Assistant Programme Officer to the writ petitioner from 24.10.1997 onwards.

His Lordship has found that the writ petitioner was discharging the duties of an Assistant Programme Officer also. A look at paragraph 7 of the writ petition and paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant will show immediately that on the pleadings this work discharge aspect was not disputed by the appellant.

On the point that the writ petitioner had accepted the lower grade of pay, his Lordship has opined that if the post legally carried the higher grade then and in that event, it would not be legal for the public respondent to compel the employee to accept payment on a lower impermissible scale of pay; the bargaining power of the employee being much smaller than that the employer, this is the standard rule applied by Courts of law.

Benefits of pay therefore have to be accorded to the writ petitioner, but the question remains from when.

Four possible dates present themselves for acceptance by the Court. The first date is the date of filing of the writ petition. The second possible date is from three years before the filing of the writ petition on the principle that in private claims, whether made in the suit Court or in the writ Court, more than three years is too long a period for a private party to wait. The third possible date is the date of the first representation made by the writ petitioner which is the 10th of August, 2001. Some dispute arose about the genuineness of the representations annexed by the writ petitioner but we found that the drafts are not legal drafts and though there are no receipts or acceptance of service, and their genuineness is denied by the respondents, the representations had a positive flavour of contemporaneousness and genuineness. It is well known in the experience of the Courts that manufactured documents clearly show themselves to be manufactured in some way or the other.

The fourth possible date is the date accepted by his Lordship which is from the date of appointment, i.e. 24.10.1997. The first possible date, i.e. the filing of the writ petition, would in our opinion be too hard on the petitioner once his entitlement is pronounced upon as legal and indefeasible. The fourth date, i.e. 24.10.1997 would place no importance on the delay of the writ petitioner and his acceptance of the lower grade of pay for several years without protest.

Choosing between the three year period and the date of the first representation, we are of the opinion that it is better in this matter to give the writ petitioner his due from the time he became bold enough to claim it in public.

As such, the appeal is allowed only to this extent that benefits accorded by his Lordship shall be made available to the writ petitioner on and from 10.8.2001 and not before. Save for this, the judgment under appeal is respectfully affirmed and upheld.

Dated:01.09.2006

RK/


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.