Allahabad High Court
Awadesh Kumar Singh And 2 Others vs State Of Up Through Its Additional Chief ... on 10 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
RESERVED ON 16.02.2023
DELIVERED ON 10.04.2023
Court No. - 30
(1) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 126 of 2022
Petitioner :- Awadesh Kumar Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up Through Its Additional Chief Secretary Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhan And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tushar Verma
connected with
(2) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5188 of 2017
Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Tewari And 55 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lko.And2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
With
(3) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13913 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(4) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13982 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vijay Shanker And 68 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(5) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14929 of 2017
Petitioner :- Mithilesh Chandra Pandey And 5 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(6) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16920 of 2017
Petitioner :- Radhey Lal And 10 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(7) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17658 of 2017
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Yadav And 7 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(8) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28446 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh And 15 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhanandors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(9) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28793 of 2017
Petitioner :- Makkhu Singh And 11 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra,Kunj Bihari Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(10) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29077 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ram Achal And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(11) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29933 of 2017
Petitioner :- Smt. Anuradha
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Civil Sectt.Andors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(12) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30199 of 2017
Petitioner :- Bharat Singh And 22 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(13) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 431 of 2018
Petitioner :- Aas Mohammad And 6 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhan Andors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(14) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 744 of 2020
Petitioner :- Wazid Ali And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt. Lko And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Anurag Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
(15) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2377 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bharat Singh And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Dept. Up. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.
(1) Heard Mr. A.M. Tripathi, Mr. R.C. Tiwari, Mr. Y.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners and Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Tushar Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.
A. Introduction (2) The present bunch of writ petitions is a classic example of litigious employment, in as much as the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court had been flooded with numerous petitions from ''Tube Well Operators' in the past on several occasion raising several issues relating to their service conditions. This Court also had an opportunity to deal with an issue relating to regularization of these part time Tube Well Operators and has passed a detailed judgment on 23.01.2023 passed in Writ-A- 22586 of 2019 (Sanjeevan Lal & 26 Ors. Vs Sate of U.P, through Principal Secretary Irrigation Lucknow and Ors.) and other connected matters.
(3) Although, the issue engaging the attention of this Court in the present bunch of writ petitions is altogether a different issue as juxtaposed to the issue decided by this court in its earlier judgment (supra), however both the cases have a common history. Broadly, stating, the writ petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions were initially appointed as part time Tube Well Operator between the year 1980 to 1990 and subsequently were regularized in due course and most of them as of now have also been superannuated.
B. Brief Background (4) The issue raised and agitated in the above-captioned petitions had its beginning in the year 1992, wherein the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order dated 20.2.1992, whereby the nomenclature of "Part Time Tube Well Operator" was changed to "Tube Well Assistant" and their honorarium was enhanced from Rs. 299/- per month to Rs. 550/- per month. The other precipitating issue at that point of time had been the decision of the Labour Court in two cases, bearing Case No. 256 of 1988 and Case No. 20 of 1989, which were filed by some "Part Time Tube Well Operators", before the Labour Court claiming pay parity with regular Tube Well Operators under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
(5) As far as the aforesaid Labour Court cases were concerned, both the aforesaid cases were decided in favour of the "Part Time Tube Well Operators" vide award dated 15.7.1989 and 1.2.1991, respectively, wherein the Labour Court returned a finding that since "Part Time Tube Well Operators" worked just as hard as regular Tube Well Operator, they were entitled to pay parity with regular Tube Well Operators.
(6) Not satisfied with the aforesaid award of the Labour Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the same by filing Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/S) of 1992: Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. and others Vs. Makrand Singh and others. Simultaneously, other writ petitions, leading writ petition no. 3558 (S/S) of 1992 : Suresh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, were also filed before this Court, challenging the aforesaid notification dated 20.2.1992, by which nomenclature of Tube Well Operators was changed to Tubewell Assistants and an honoraria of Rs.500/- per month has been fixed in lieu of pay. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided the aforesaid writ petitions by a common judgment and order dated 18.5.1994. The operative portion of the order dated 18.5.1994 reads as under :-
"In the result, I allow all the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/S) of 1992 and quash the Notification dated 20.2.1992 (as contained in Annexure-I to the Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/S) of 1992) by which nomenclature of the petitioners has been changed to that of tubewell assistants and honoraria of Rs.550/- per month has been fixed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i.e. in the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed tubewell operators are being paid.
Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/S) of 1992 filed by the State, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. and others Vs. Makrand Singh and others, is dismissed."
(7) The aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.05.1994 was challenged by the State of U.P. by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16219 of 19994 : State of U.P. Vs. Mangra Pd. Verma and others, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.03.1995, observing therein that the duties, qualifications, and hours of working of the "Part Time Tube Well Operators" are similar to that of regular Tube Well Operators and thus based on the principal of ''equal pay for equal work', the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the State. Even, the Review Petitions No. 1894 to 1897 of 1992 filed by the State seeking review of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.03.1995, was dismissed on 18.10.1995.
(8) In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State of U.P, issued an order on 27.10.1995, followed by another order on 10.11.1995, providing the same emoluments of pay, which were given to the regular Tube Well Operators to a "Part Time Tube Well Operators", who were covered by the said judgment and order dated 18.5.1994 and other similarly situated petitioners. It may be noted that the Government Order dated 27.10.1995 was issued for all those persons who were covered by the judgment and order dated 18.05.1994, whereas Government Order dated 10.11.1995 was issued for persons covered by the order of the Labour Court.
(9) Apparently, Part Time Tube Well Operators, who were covered by the judgment passed in Suresh Chandra Tewari's case, were given regular pay scale as that of a regular part time Tube Well Operator with effect from 18.05.1994, however, as far as the part time Tube Well Operators, who had the award of Labour Court in their favour, were given regular pay scale as that of the regular part time Tube Well Operator from 31.03.1989 or from the date of their respective appointment.
(10) There had been a controversy related to the date from which the regular pay-scale as that of the regular Tube Well Operator was applicable to the part time Tube Well Operators. Some of the part time Tube Well Operators claimed that they were entitled from 31.03.1989 and as such filed writ petition before this court, which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Benche of this Court. Although, the State has filed a review, however during the pendency of the said review petition, these part-time tube well operators filed Contempt petition for compliance of pay-fixation from 31.03.1989, which the contempt court allowed subject to the outcome of the review petition or subsequent appeal of the State Government. Subsequently, the record reveals that, both the review petition as well as the SLP filed by the State against this pay-fixation from 31.03.1989 to this part-time tube well operators failed. Thus, the State Government was obliged to give the pay-fixation of these part time tube well operators similar to that of a regular tube well operators since 31.03.1989 under the orders of this court.
(11) The whole issue relating to the date of applicability of the regular pay scale or pay-parity of part-time tube well operators with regular tube well operators was convoluted with the passing of incongruous judgments by this court over a passage of time and ultimately vide an order dated 22.01.2016, the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that all the part-time tube well operators ( except those who were parties in the labour court proceedings which culminated in award dated 15/07/1989), shall be entitled to regular pay scale only with effect from 18.05.1994 in the light of the decision of the High Court in Suresh Chandra Tiwari versus State of UP. (supra).
(12) In view of the aforesaid observation and clarity of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government had started sending notice for re-fixing the pay-scale with effect from 18.05.1994 in place of the earlier date of 31.03.1989, which has triggered various consequences, including filing of the present bunch of writ petitions before this Court. Further, there is a second leg to the issue, wherein the State Government has in furtherance to the aforesaid re-fixing of the pay-scale has sought recovery of salary paid between 31.03.1989 to 18.05.1994 and has also initiated steps to recover the said amount, including withholding retiral benefits, like gratuity etc. C. The controversy (13) Apparently, the controversy in the present bunch of writ petitions can be divided into two categories. The second category being the consequence of the first category. The first category of writ petitions have erupted due to the re-fixation of the pay-scale from 31.03.1989 to 18.05.1994, which has resulted in issuance of the impugned notice/order by the respondents/State. The following writ petitions would come within the "first category":
Sr. No. Details of Writ Petitions Date of Impugned Order sought to be challenged
(i) Writ Petition-A-No. 5188/2017 (Rajender Kr. Tiwari & 56 others vs. State of U.P. and others)
02.02.2017
(ii) Writ Petition-A-No. 13913/2017 (Ramesh Chandra & 5 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 02.02.2017
(iii) Writ Petition-A-No. 13982/2017 (Vijay Shankar & 69 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 19.05.2017 & 26.05.2017
(iv) Writ Petition-A-No. 14929/2017 (Mithilesh Chandra Pandey & 6 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 08.05.2017
(v) Writ Petition-A-No. 16920/2017 (Radhey Lal & 11 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 19.05.2017 & 26.05.2017
(vi) Writ Petition-A-No. 17658/2017 (Shiv Kumar Yadav & 8 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 02.02.2017& 19.05.2017
(vii) Writ Petition-A-No. 28446/2017 (Vijay Kr. Singh & 16 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 08.05.2017 & 19.05.2017
(viii) Writ Petition-A-No.28793/2017 (Mukhu Singh & 12 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 19.05.2017 & 26.05.2017
(ix) Writ Petition-A-No. 29077/2017 (Ram Achal & 5 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 19.05.2017 & 26.05.2017 & 08.11.2017
(x) Writ Petition-A-No. 29933/2017 (Anuradha vs. State of U.P. and others) 19.05.2017 & 26.05.2017 & 08.11.2017
(xi) Writ Petition-A-No. 30199/2017 (Bharat Singh & 23 Others vs. State of U.P. and others ) 30.05.2017
(xii) Writ Petition-A-No. 431/2018 (Aas Mohammad & 7 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 08.05.2017 & 19.05.2017 & 27.05.2017 (14) Further, since salary had been already disbursed to these part-time tube well operators on a pay-scale as was applicable to regular tube well operator during the duration from 31.03.1989 to 18.05.1994, the State Government after re-fixing the pay-scale as aforesaid and as a consequence to its earlier order (which are impugned in the ''first category' of writ petitions) has also sent a further notice for recovery of this excess salary paid during the period from this part-time tube well operators and coercive steps for recovery like attachment/with-holding of gratuity payment etc. has been taken by the Respondent-state. The following writ petitions would come within the "Second Category" :-
Sr. No. Details of Writ petitions Date of Impugned Order sought to be challenged
(i) Writ Petition-A- No. 744/2020 (Wazid Ali & 3 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 11.02.2019
(ii) Writ Petition-A-No. 126/2022 (Awadhesh Kr. Singh & 3 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 01.10.2021
(iii) Writ Petition-A-No. 2377/2022 (Bharat Singh & 6 others vs. State of U.P. and others) 18.08.2021 D. Contention of the parties (15) Since common issue has been raised as far as the "first category" of writ petitions are concerned, the facts of the writ petition, bearing Writ-A No. 5188 of 2017 (Rajender Kr. Tiwari & 56 others and others), is being taken for proper appreciation of the facts in these petitions as this writ petition is the earliest petition filed in this bunch of matters. Apparently, it is available from records that the petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the impugned order dated 02.02.2017, wherein the pay-fixation with effect from 31.12.1989 was cancelled without providing any opportunity of hearing to them.
(16) As per the petitioners, the effect of the said cancellation had led the salary of the petitioners to be reduced by re-fixing the same with effect from 18.05.1994, which has civil consequences and could not had been passed ex parte. The petitioners giving a brief background of the case, contended that they were initially appointed as "part time Tube Well Operators" and vide notification dated 20.02.1992, they were re-designated as "Tube Well Assistant" with a fixed honorarium of Rs. 550/- per month and presently all of them were working in a pay scale, which is Class-III non-gazetted post.
(17) It is the case of the petitioner that some of the part time Tube Well Operators raised an industrial dispute in connection with the payment of wages, which was awarded in favour of the part time Tube Well Operator by the Labour Court, leading to challenge the same before this Court in Writ No. 1502 (S/S) 1992 by the respondents/State. Number of similar cases came to be filed by other Tube Well Operators before this Court also, challenging the aforesaid notification dated 20.02.1992 and the fixed honorarium and claiming equal pay as that of the regularly appointed Tube Well Operators. These bunch of writ petitions was decided by means of an order dated 18.05.1994 passed in writ petition no. 3558/1992 : Suresh Chandra Tewai and Others Vs State of U.P & Ors., wherein this Court held that part time Tube Well Operators were entitled for equal pay as that of regularly appointed Tube Well Operators and the notification dated 20.02.1992 was also quashed. The respondent/State, although filed special appeal and special leave petition against the said order, however, the same was dismissed.
(18) In the meantime, some part time tube well operators approached this Court and claimed regular pay scale with effect from the date of the Labour Court award and as such claimed the benefit from 31.03.1989 as had been given to some part time tube well operators, which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
(19) The petitioners also approached this Court vide writ petition No. 1820/2002 ( Rajendra Kumar Tewari & 88 others V/s State of U.P & Others) claiming payment of arrears of salary with effect from 31.03.1989 on the same pay scale as applicable to regular pay scale tube well operators, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2010 on the basis of another order dated 21.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition no. 7489 (S/S)/2000 ( Awadhesh Kr. Singh Case) (hereinafter to be referred as "secondary order"), which in turn was decided on the basis of another order dated 18.05.1994 passed in Writ No. 3558/1992 (SS) (hereinafter to be referred as "Primary order").
(20) Since, the order passed by this court was not complied, the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this court, wherein the competent authority vide an order dated 06.08.2012 complied with the judgment & order passed by the Hon'ble Court, thereby providing pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 31.03.1989, however the same was subject to final decision of review petition and other similar matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being review petition No. 26/2012 and SLP (C) No. 5283/2011 (State of U.P Vs Roshan lal & Ors.), filed in similarly circumstanced matter. It is reported that both the review as well as the SLP was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2013 and 11.08.2014 respectively.
(21) Further, it has been stated by the petitioners that SLP (c) No. 1170/2016, preferred by the State, against order dated 23.02.2010 in Writ Petition No.1820 (S/S) of 2002 (Rajendra Kr. Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others) was also dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2016, wherein it has been clarified that except for 73 Tube Well Operators covered by the Labour Court award, all other Tube Well Operators shall be entitled for regular pay scale with effect from 18.05.1994 i.e the passing of the order by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Suresh Chandra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. (supra). Thus, it has been submitted by the petitioners that service benefits had been granted with effect from 31.03.1989 in the aforesaid background.
(22) It has been claimed that the impugned letter dated 12.02.2017 has led to reduction of salary of the petitioners between 2000/- to 3,000/- and are of civil consequences and ought not to have been passed by the respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing. Thus, they claim that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(23) Counter-affidavit was filed by the State, enumerating the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order. According to them, after the passing of order dated 18.05.1994 in the Suresh Chandra Tewari's case by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the State filed SLP No. 16219/1994, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.995, against which a review was also preferred, which was also dismissed vide order dated18.10.1995. Thus, the State, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, issued an order dated 27.10.1995 providing pay scale of tube well operators to all the petitioners covered by judgment and order dated 18.5.1994 from the said date of judgment. Subsequently, another Government Order was issued on 10.11.1995, wherein those persons, who were covered by the award of the Labour Court dated 15.07.1988 were given benefit of regular pay scale of tube well operator w.e.f. 31.03.1989. It is the submission of the respondents/State in their counter-affidavit that subsequently, several litigation came to be filed by various tube well operators, claiming benefit of pay scale of regular tube well operators w.e.f. 31.03.1989 or from the date of their initial appointment, which was allowed by this Court and pursuant to contempt petition filed by some tube well operators, the benefit was given of pay-scale w.e.f. 31.03.1989, subject to the outcome of review and appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(24) It has been stated, further by the State that in some cases, appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed, however, vide order dated 22.01.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding a bunch of SLP's tagged along with SLP No. 883/2016 (State of U.P & Ors. V/s Munna Lal Trivedi & Ors.), the Apex Court clarified that except for the tube well operators, who are covered by the order of Labour Court, the other tube well operators shall be entitled for regular pay scale with effect from 18.05.1994 only. To the similar effect is the Order dated 04.01.2016 passed in SLP(C) No. 348612015 ( Rakesh Kumar & Ors V/s State of U.P & Ors.); Order dated 29.01.2016 passed in SLP(C) No. 1696-1697/2016 (Kamlesh kumar Singh & Ors. V/s State of U.P & Ors.); and Order dated 201.07.2016 passed in SLP (CC) No. 1066/2016 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V/s Irfan Ali & Ors.).
(25) It is the case of the respondents/State that the payments of the petitioners were made conditionally as per the order of the Court and as such, after passing the judgment and order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when the issue stood clarified, their order relating to re-fixing of the pay-scale and consequent recovery is well justified. It was stated that in case recovery was not made from the petitioners, the other similarly situated persons about 14990, would demand payment of salary from the date when the salary was paid to the petitioners and the burden of which would come on the State for about 600 Crores.
(26) In the second set of writ petition, it has been alleged that although the aforesaid interim order was made over to the respondents, however, they ignored the same and passed the impugned order of recovery from pension/gratuity. It is common ground that the said order of recovery has been passed ex parte and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in breach of principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that these petitioners are low paid employee and if the aforesaid amount is allowed to be recovered, they would suffer great financial constraint and hardship. They also relied on the order of this Court dated 08.01.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 31262/2017 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby similar impugned order was set-aside and it was left open to the respondents to pass fresh orders.
(27) Counter-Affidavit was filed on 06.03.2020 by the respondents, narrating the admitted facts and the litigation between the parties. It has been submitted by the respondents that after having been regularized on the post of tube well operators and on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioners have retired from the services and as such just in order to protect the money of the public exchequer the amount as mentioned in the impugned order has been withheld from the gratuity, although the remaining dues as well as pension was being paid to the petitioners regularly. It has been submitted that the amount has been withheld subject to the decision of the writ petition No. 5188 (S/S) of 2017.
E. Arguments of the parties (28) Mr. A.M. Tripathi, Mr. R.C. Tiwari, Mr. Y.K. Mishra, Advocates appearing for the writ petitioners in their usual erudite manner submitted that the petitioners were getting their salary in the said pay scale in accordance with the judgments and in compliance of this Hon'ble Court. The petitioners were not heard before any re-fixing of the pay scale by the respondent and since the re-fixing of the salary resulted in civil consequences of reduction of salary and proposed recovery, a chance of hearing was obligatory on the part of the Respondent/state. They have also submitted that in the present cases not only the petitioners have been getting salary from 31-03-1989 to 18-05-1994 under Court's order, but also the Hon'ble Apex Court has not directed recovery of such payments. Further, they were not a party to the Supreme Court order dated 04.01.2016, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court had given clarification relating to the date of applicability of the pay-scale. According to them, the order granting the pay scale with effect from 31.03.1989 by the High Court has merged with the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the doctrine of merger and in their own case and in any case, the issue relating to the applicability of the pay scale stands settled and the same cannot be re-opened again as the same would be barred by the principles of res judicata. They also relied on the judgment of Babloo Singh & Ors V/s State of U.P : (2019) 12 SCC 403 for doctrine of merger and Judgment passed by Apex Court in (i) Pradeep Kumar Maskara Vs State of U.P. ( 2015) 2 SCC 653 & (ii) Kalinga Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India, (2013) 5 SCC 252 for principle of res judicata.
(29) A second line of argument has also been taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as a consequence to the revision of the pay-scale, the salary of the petitioners have not only reduced but now the Government has issued notices for recovery of the excess payment made during the period of 31.03.1989 to 18.05.1994 and in that directions has also illegally withheld the gratuity amount payable to them. They have relied on the case of State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih reported in 2014 (8) SCC 883 to submit that since tube well operators are Class-III employees, the salary paid is not recoverable. Further, according to the learned Counsel, withholding of amount of gratuity is absolutely in violation of provisions of payment of Gratuity Act and even otherwise the gratuity of petitioners cannot be withheld except in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulations as the gratuity is treated to be the part of post retiral dues. According to them the respondent has not proceeded to take any action against them as per the said regulations and as such the same was illegal. Thus, the petitioners have relied on the judgment of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, (2007) 1 SCC 663 and Netram Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2018) 5 SCC 430.
(30) On the other hand, Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Sanjay Sarin, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Tushar Verma, learned Special Counsel led the arguments on the side of the respondent-State. Written submissions, have been also filed by the respondents. In nutshell, it has been submitted that numerous litigations which also includes the litigation of the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions have been concluded by the orders passed in the leading SLP no. 186 of 2014 by order dated 22/01/2016 by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the bunch of SLP's has settled after looking into the entire history of litigation with regard to the dispute being every now and then raised by the part-time tube well operators with regard to the grant of regular pay scale in pursuance of the judgment rendered in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari (Supra).
(31) The doctrine of merger as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, have been refuted by the learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr : (2000) 6 SCC 359. It has been argued by him that the doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine of statutorily recognized as the same could be founded on the principles of proprietary in the hierarchy of justice delivery system. The learned Senior Counsel referred and argued that the SLP filed by the state challenging in the petitioner's case had been dismissed in limine and as such the same does not merge with the order of the Single Judge. He vividly relied on the conclusion part of the said judgment. Thus, it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel that since the order passed on SLP and relied by the petitioners in their own case had been dismissed in limine without any findings, the doctrine of merger would not apply.
(32) It has been further argued that the reliance of the petitioners on certain dismissal order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similarly situated writ petitioners would apply with equal force to them is also not correct as it is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/ benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well.
(33) The learned Additional Advocate General has emphatically tried to bring home the point that since the petitioners have got the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 31/3/1989 and have now superannuated, thus the respondent/State has withheld the gratuity amount, as it was found that excess payment had been made to the petitioners after passing of the re-fixation/revision order, which was duly intimated to the petitioners. Thus, as such just in order to protect the money of the public exchequer the amount as mentioned in in the impugned orders has been withheld from the gratuity and further whatever the remaining dues were there they have been paid and the regular pension is also being paid to the petitioners.
(34) Further, as to the reliance of the petitioners on regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations relating to the only provisions under the regulations wherein gratuity payable to a retired government servant could be withheld is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel referred to Regulation 922 of the Civil Service Regulations, which entailed that any government dues which can be ascertained can also be recovered from the death cum retirement gratuity and as such it has been argued that withholding of gratuity is legally permissible and in accordance with law.
(35) As to the applicability of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (supra) referred by the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable and the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present cases in view of the judgment recently rendered in Civil Appeal no. 2229 of 2022 (Mekha Ram & Others v/s State of Rajasthan & Others decided on 29/03/2022). Thus, it has been argued that these petitions are devoid of any merits and should be dismissed.
(36) This court while issuing notice to the respondents in the lead matter had passed an Interim order dated 08.03.2017, wherein the current salary of the petitioners was made payable in terms of the impugned order, however, no recovery pursuant to thereto of the amount already paid to the petitioner was directed by this court. It was also directed that the said interim order would be subject to further outcome of the writ petition.
F. Discussion & Findings (37) Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, this court is of the view that the main controversy revolves around the factum of applicability and consequences of order dated 04.01.2016 and 22.01.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present set of petitioners. The issue is no longer res integra that with the passing of the judgment and order dated 18.05.1994 in writ petition No. 3558 (S/S) of 1992( Suresh Chandra Tewari and others Vs. State of U.P. and others ) and 49 others similar writ petitions, the issue relating to pay parity of part time tube well operators with that of regular part time tube well operators, garnered an impetus and the issue was finally set at rest with the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Respondent/State before the Division bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP(C) No. 16219/1994 decided on 22.03.1995. Further, even the review petition filed against the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court stands dismissed vide an order dated 18.10.1995 with the observation of the principal of "Equal pay for Equal Work".
(38) Apparently, the Government of U.P issued an order on 27.10.1995 providing the same pay-scale, which were given to the regular Tube well operators, to all the petitioners (part time tube-well operators) covered by judgment and order dated 18.5.1994 passed by this Hon'ble Court from the date of judgment i.e. 18.5.1994 only. A separate Government order dated 10.11.1995 was also issued, giving same pay-scale, for all those persons, who were covered by the labour court Award.
(39) Further, after the issuance of aforesaid Government orders, several writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 103/1996 (Jai Karan Singh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others), came to be filed before this court by similarly situated part time tube well operators and their associations, which were all allowed vide an Order dated 25.04.1996 by a single Bench of this court, granting the benefit of pay-parity as that of the Suresh Chand Tiwari case with prospective effect. However, it seemed this part time tube well operators (as well as the association) were not happy with the said judgment of the Single Judge as far as it held the benefit of regular pay-parity prospectively and as such filed appeals before a division bench of this court. The Division bench of this court vide an order 04.12.1998 acceded to the request of these tube well operators and modified the order of the Single Judge to the extent that the benefit of pay-parity would be available from the date of passing of the judgment of the Suresh Chand Tewari Case. Thus, regular pay came to be paid to all the similarly situated tube well operators with effect from 18.05.1994 only.
The conundrum relating to the effective date (40) In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench ( mentioned supra), prima-facie it seemed by the year 1999-2000 the issue with regard to the date of applicability of the benefit arising out of the Suresh Chand Tewari Case stood settled. However, apparently, the whole confusion started, after some six years, with the filing of a writ petition No. 7489 (S/S) of 2000 (Awadhesh Kumar Singh & Ors Vs State of U.P & Ors.) before this court ( "Secondary Order"'). The said writ petition was decided on the very first date on 21.12.2000, wherein a Single Judge of this court granted the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioners of the said writ petition with effect from 31.03.1989 and not from 18.05.1994, although the order mentioned that the relief was granted in terms of Suresh Chand Tewari Case. The confusion was further aggravated, when the special appeal filed by the State of U.P against the said order of the Single Judge was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2009 by the Division Bench of this court and even the review order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2010.
(41) Although the State of U.P filed an SLP (Civil) No. 17690/2010 against the orders of Division Bench, however the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide an order dated 29.11.2010 on the ground of delay. Even the review preferred before the Apex court was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2011.
(42) Thus, the confusion which started with the passing of order dated 21.12.2000 in the Awadhesh Kumar Singh case reached its zenith with the dismissal of the review order by the Hon'ble Apex Court, however it is apparent from the records that in Awadhesh Kumar Singh Case, the Single Bench noted & referred to order/judgment dated 30.05.1997 modified vide order dated 23.03.1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Writ petition No. 2679/1993 ( Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla & 47 others V/s State of U.P) ( "primary order"). In the Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla case, it was directed that the payment would be made with effect from the date of payment of similarly situated next junior to the petitioners, however in modification application it was mentioned that in Suresh Chand Tewari Case the benefit of grant of regular pay scale had been given with effect from 31.03.1989 and as such in view of the said the Single Bench modified its earlier order to give effect of pay-parity from 31.03.1989 vide its modification order dated 23.03.1999.
(43) Apparently, the order dated 04.12.1998 passed by a division bench of this court in Jai Karan's Case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Ld. Single Judge, which led to the passing of the order dated 23.03.1999 (Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla case), which had a chain reaction as Awadhesh Sigh Case was decided on the basis of the said modified order passed in Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla's case. Further, the issue got more complicated as eventually Awadhesh Singh Case went to the Supreme Court and was dismissed in limine due to delay, although the fact remained that the basis on which Awadhesh Sigh Case was decided was itself overturned subsequently as the State of U.P preferred a special Appeal against the order dated 30.05.1997 & 23.03.1999( passed in Rajeshwar Prasad Shukla's case) before the Division Bench of this court vide Special Appeal No. 548 of 2000( State of U.P & Others V/s Vinod Kumar & Others) and other connected matters which were all allowed vide an order dated 14.07.2000, thereby modifying the order of the Single Judge to the extent that pay parity was given with effect from the date of judgment passed in Suresh Chand Tewari Case.
(44) Thus, the very basis of Awadhesh Kumar Singh's case stood modified vide an order dated 14.07.2000 by a Division bench of this court and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Ld. Single Judge of this court, which went on to pass an order dated 21.12.2000, which was in per curium. Since, Awadhesh Kumar Singh's case was decided in per curium, the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition (SS) No. 1820 of 2002 ( Rajendra Kumar Tewari V/s Sate of U.P) decided on the basis of Awadhesh Kumar Singh's case is also in per curium.
(45) To the same effect would be the other two writ petition being No. 2936(S/S) of 2001 (Roshan lal & Others V/s State of U.P) and Writ Petition No. 4383 (S/S) of 2010 (Aas Mohd. & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others), which came to be decided on the very first date i.e 22/06/2001 and 10/08/2010 respectively. Interestingly, both these writ petitions were disposed of on the basis and in terms of order dated 21.12.2000 passed in Awadhesh Sigh Case. Even in this both matters, like the earlier Awadhesh Singh Case, the respondent/state preferred special Appeals before the Division bench, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Roshan Lal) and 15.03.2011(Aas Mohd.) and even the SLP filed against this orders vide SLP (C ) No. 5283/2011 & SLP (C ) No. 13692-93/2012 were dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2014. The review filed by the State also met the same fate of dismissal vide order dated 18.03.2015 and 01.12.2014 respectively and not to mention the curative preferred by the state in both the matters, which also met with the same result vide order dated 06.08.2015.
(46) If the aforesaid matters were relating to cases, wherein part time tube well operators were granted regular pay-fixation benefit with effect from 31.03.1989, there were several matters wherein the claim of petitioner were declined by this court in the past; to illustrate:
"Writ Petition No. 155 (S/S) of 2001 (Rajendra Prasad Mishra V/s State of U.P. & Others) was filed before this Hon'ble High Court by which the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 26/04/2001 declined to grant the regular pay scale wef. 31/03/1989. The Special Appeal filed by the petitioners in that case was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 23.04.2014.
Although, Writ Petition No. 1818 (S/S) of 2002 (Kamlesh Kumar Singh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others) came to be decided vide order dated 16/03/2010 along with other writ petitions in favour of granting regular pay-sale with effect from 31.03.1989 and even the review filed by the state was dismissed vide an order dated 23/07/2013. However, on Appeal before the Division bench by the state, the Appeal was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2015 along with 19 other special Appeals.
Apparently, some of the writ petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Division bench preferred various individual SLPS's, which all were dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2016 and even the review filed against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2016. Further, identical SLP's including SLP(C) No. 186/2014 came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Apex Court on 22.01.2014, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the SLP's filed by writ petitioners specifically clarified the entire gamut of confusion and concluded that regular pay scale was liable to be granted only to 73 workmen who initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act which culminated in award dated 15/07/1989. In the cases of all others, regular pay scale was effective only wef. 18/05/1994 in the light of the decision of the High Court in Suresh Chandra Tiwari versus State of UP. Further, the State was directed to bring this order to the notice of the High Court in the pending cases so that at least in future the High Court be conscientious in such cases."
(47) Pertinently, in the interregnum three more writ petition came to be filed, wherein the Single Judge directed for regular pay-scale with effect from 31.03.1989, which was also upheld by the Division bench, however on Appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the Appeal of the respondent/State. These matters being:
Writ No. & details Single Judge Order Division Bench order Hon'ble Apex Court Writ Petition No. 1820 (S/S) of 2002 23/02/2010 Special Appeal Defective No. 12 of 2012 Dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2013 SLP no. 1170 of 2016 Allowed vide order dated 22/01/2016 Writ Petition No. 9138 (S/S) of 2011 20/12/2011 Special Appeal Defective No. 778 of 2012 Dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2014 SLP no. 1069 of 2016 Allowed vide order dated 22/01/2016 Writ Petition No. 631 (S/S) of 2012 02/02/2012 Special Appeal Defective No. 704 of 2012 Dismissed vide order dated 24/03/2015 SLP no. 83 of 2016 Allowed vide order dated 22/01/2016 (48) Thus, this court is of the view that the conundrum relating to the effective date on which a tube well operator would become entitled for regular pay scale i.e whether 31.03.1989 as claimed by the petitioners or 18.05.1994 i.e the date of passing of Suresh Chand Tewari Case, came to be settled as on 04.01.2016 and 22.01.2016 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court while dismissing the Appeal categorically held that those tube well operators, who were not a part of the labour court order, shall be entitled to regular pay scale with effect from 18/05/1994 in the light of the decision of the High Court in Suresh Chand Tewari Case. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearing the entire air and considering the confusion created in the issue before the High Court, directs the state to bring the said order dated 22.01.2016 to the notice of the High court in all pending cases, so that at least in future the High court be conscientious in such cases.
(49) Apparently, since the confusion created has been settled only on 04.01.2016 and 22.01.2016 by the Apex court, prima-facie the writ petitioners who had enjoyed the fruits of earlier litigation cannot be faulted with, especially when the pay-scale having been granted from an anterior date i.e 31.03.1989 was by virtue of a court order. However, the said proposition has a caveat, in as much as this court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the court order by virtue of which Awadhesh Sigh Case came to be decided by the Single Judge and upheld till the supreme court, which has resulted in a chain-reaction and had been the basis of various writ petitions thereafter, was passed on the basis of an order which itself was set-aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court as mentioned supra. Thus, the balance of equity has to be understood and weighed in the aforesaid competing proposition of facts.
(50) However, this court finds that the mere reliance of the writ petitioners on doctrine of merger, to argue that the Respondent/ State could not re-fix the pay-scale on the basis of the clarification order dated 04.01.2016 or 22.01.2016 is not wholly correct, as firstly clarification is always of a proposition which always existed and remained intact. Clarification seems to merely express a view point & meaning thereof in the context of the matter. Secondly, the doctrine of merger would not squarely apply to all those cases decided on the basis of Awadhesh Singh Case, as the SLP'S in each of these cases have been either been dismissed in limine or on the ground of limitation. The Apex Court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000(6) SCC 359), in unequivocal terms held that an order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger and it is only when leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(51) The writ petitioners have vehemently argued that even if some wrong fixation of pay was made while the petitioners were in service, they being Class-III/ IV employees, the same may not be deductible from their post-retirement dues in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih : (2015) 4 SCC 334 may also be not correct, because any judgment is an authority on the point it decides. Further, in Rafiq Masih case, the respondents (employees) were given monetary benefits, which were in excess of their entitlement. These benefits flowed to them, consequent upon a mistake committed by the concerned competent authority, in determining the emoluments payable to them. In the present case, in hand, there is no mistake committed by the concerned competent authority, but the excess monetary benefits have been given under a court order or rather under a threat of contempt proceedings. It would be refer to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Mekha Ram & Others Vs State of Rajasthan & Others decided on 29/03/2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court vividly held that in case any monetary benefit has been given in view of any court order, the same has to be made good on the principle of restitution as no one shall suffer by an act of the court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the facts & circumstances of that case, granted permission to recovery the monetary benefits accrued due to a court order, however, again there is a Caveat, in as much as in that case the private respondent were still in service and were working in the said organization and the deduction were allowed to be paid in installments. However, in the present case, the petitioners have superannuated and their retiral benefits are sought to be withheld on the name of recovery and protecting public funds. Thus, again a competing proposition has to be determined in the facts of each case, wherein the petitioners although may have superannuated and they belong to class III/IV category, still as to whether the government can go ahead with the recovery of excess payments made to them.
(52) This Court has also considered the fact from a different angle by taking into consideration a holistic view of the notices/orders impugned in these writ petition. It is noted that the Respondent/State, in the first instance issued notice informing the writ petitioners that the excess amount paid to them would be recovered in terms of order dated 22.01.2016 and on the heels of the said information, the Respondent/State pursuant to its aspirations to recover/adjust the excess amount has issued a second notices informing the writ petitioners about withholding the retiral benefits, inspite of interim orders passed by this court. Further, the tearing hurry of the Respondent/state to withhold the gratuity amount cannot be understood in common parlance, especially when the only provision to withhold a gratuity is under regulation 351A of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable to the state of Uttar Pradesh, which prescribes certain stringent conditions, which are not to be found in the present case. Although, the respondent/state has argued that regulation 922 of the civil Service regulations, empowers them to withhold gratuity, however, it appears from the record that the order of recovery/adjustment of the amount from the retiral dues has been passed without resorting to any such rule and in any case, the impugned order of withholding the gratuity amount has not been passed keeping in view the aforesaid regulations as well as the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act.
(53) Thus, the impugned orders passed by the respondent/state has to be tested by this court on the anvil of the aforesaid analysis. However, this court finds that the impugned orders/notice has been passed merely on the basis of order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned supra.
(54) It is evident from the impugned orders that the very decision of the competent authority to reduce and re-fix the pay-scale of the petitioners have civil consequences as the same has the effect of not only reducing the pay-scale, but also contemplate recovery of any excess amount paid by the respondent. Apparently, these impugned orders have been passed without issuing any notice or seeking any explanation from the writ petitioners. The fact about non-observance of the principle of natural justice cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the State since no such opportunity of providing hearing to the writ petitions have been appended to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent State in the writ petition.
(55) It is settled position of law that when a decision is taken which has a civil consequence and would adversely affect the rights of the other party, the bare requirement to follow the principle of natural justice is mandatorily to be followed, but here no such opportunity of seeking explanation or hearing has been provided to the writ petitioners. The opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary.
(56) Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the rules of natural justice operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. These principles thus supplement the law of the land. In the celebrated case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597, it has been observed that even where there is no specific provision for showing cause, yet in a proposed action which affects the rights of an individual it is the duty of the authority to give reasonable opportunity to be heard. This duty is said to be implied by nature of function to be performed by the authority having power to take punitive or damaging action. The writ petitioners obviously have been visited with civil consequences but they had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of their basic pay. They were not, even put on notice before their pay was reduced by the Authority and the order came to be made behind their back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the writ petitioners have been made to suffer financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.
(57) Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the impugned notice/order issued/passed by the Authority for re-fixing the pay-scale fails on the ground of non-compliance of principle of natural justice. Consequently, any decision for recovery of the excess amount re-worked by re-fixing the pay-scale and any action taken by the respondent for withholding the reiral benefits has also to fail.
G. Conclusion (58) In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that since the principle of natural justice has not been followed by the respondent/state as no opportunity of hearing has been given by them to the writ petitioners, before the pay-scale was re-fixed/reduced giving rise to civil consequences, the impugned order/notice issued by the respondent in the first category of writ petitions cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law and as such the same are hereby quashed. Consequently, all orders of recovery impugned in second category of cases also stands quashed as being an off-shoot of the impugned order/notice in the first category of writ petitions. However, it shall be open to the respondent/State to issue fresh notice/order to the writ petitioners and take a decision in accordance with law.
(59) Further, it goes without saying that since all the issues which are noticed and enunciated above would merit consideration before the competent Authority, who shall have to evaluate the claims of the petitioners herein, bearing in mind the various competing factors & observation as has been mentioned herein above, it is directed that the competent Authority shall give an opportunity of explanation and/or hearing to the writ petitioners, before passing a speaking order in the matter.
(60) For the aforesaid purpose, the matters shall stand remitted to the competent authority. The exercise of reconsideration may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months of the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order, keeping in mind that most of the petitioners have already superannuated.
(61) The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no orders as to cost.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Order Date : 10th April, 2023 Ajit/-