Allahabad High Court
Gulab Chand Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 March, 2021
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7977 of 2020 Petitioner :- Gulab Chand Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar,Rajesh Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri R.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 19.8.2019 passed by the second respondent/Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad, by which the claim of the petitioner for fixation of his salary has been rejected, as well as the order dated 16.7.2020 passed by the third respondent/Commandant, 36th Bn. P.A.C. Ram Nagar, Varanasi rejecting the request of petitioner for fixation. Further request has been made to issue direction to the respondents to provide the benefits of time scale in fixation of his salary according to Government orders dated 03.12.2010, 17.6.2013 and 25.1.2016 and pay the salary and all service benefits and pension to him.
It appears from the record that the petitioner was initially recruited as Constable in 5th Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) on 20.9.1966 against a substantive vacancy, and after completion of training, he had been discharging his duties as Constable in PAC. The petitioner along with other Constables of PAC were involved in an incident, which is known as 'PAC revolt' and had occurred in the year 1973. On account of his involvement in the P.A.C. revolt in the year 1973, his services were terminated on 31.5.1973. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court but subsequently in the appeal he was acquitted. After his acquittal the petitioner had approached to the Commandant, 26th Battalion, PAC, Gorakhpur for his reinstatement. When nothing had happened, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.40406 of 1998 and the same was finally disposed of on 08.9.1999, directing the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner. In response thereof, the third respondent had proceeded to pass an order on 19.11.1999, whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service alongwith all service benefits. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.2006.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary of the petitioner was correctly fixed by the third respondent and he was continuously drawing the said salary at 36th Bn. PAC Ram Nagar. He was transferred from 36th Bn. PAC Ram Nagar to 8th Bn. PAC, Bareilly in the year 2000 and he continued there upto his retirement i.e. 31.12.2006. In the year 2001 during his service at 8th Bn. PAC, Bareilly, his salary was wrongly re-fixed at the minimum scale as newly recruited Constable from the date of his reinstatement excluding the period of termination till the date of his reinstatement without providing the benefit of time scale, selection grade etc. and on account of aforesaid wrong fixation, he retired on 31.12.2006 from the basic minimum scale and on the same rate, his pension and post retiral benefits were prepared and paid to him. By means of impugned order dated 19.8.2019 the second respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of his salary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while approving the impugned order dated 19.8.2019, the claim of petitioner has also been rejected by the third respondent vide impugned order dated 16.7.2020 on the ground that the order dated 08.9.1999 passed in Writ Petition No.40406 of 1998 is not covered by the Government orders dated 03.12.2010, 17.6.2013 and 25.1.2016, whereas the same order was also passed in Writ Petition Nos.43530 of 1998 (Ayodhya Rai vs. State of UP and ors) and 40065 of 1998 (Dhanraj Yadav vs. State of UP and ors) on 08.9.1999 and 23.9.1999 respectively. Consequently, the petitioners in both the writ petitions were reinstated on 26.10.1999 and 10.11.1999 and they have been provided the benefit of time scale, revised scale, selection grade in fixation of their salary according to the Government orders dated 3.12.2010, 17.6.2013 and 25.1.2016 but by the impugned orders dated 19.8.2019 and 16.7.2010 the respondents have wrongly recorded the finding that the order dated 8.9.1999 passed in Writ Petition No.40406 of 1998 preferred by the petitioner is not covered by the aforesaid Government orders. He submits that the claim set up by the petitioner is to be decided in the light of the judgements passed in the case of Ayodhya Rai (supra) and Dhanraj Yadav (supra).
Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to demonstrate any distinguishable circumstances on account of which any different treatment is required in this matter.
In such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 19.8.2019 and 16.7.2020 cannot sustain and the same are set aside.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and decide afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021 RKP