Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Sichai Sangh U.P. & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 February, 2010

Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi

Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5389 of 2010

Petitioner :- Sichai Sangh U.P. & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Raj Kumar Singh,Amit Saxena,P.N. Saksena
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

The contention raised by the petitioners is that they were part time Tube Well Operators, who were extended all benefits equivalent to that of full time Tube Well Operators in the Order dated 3rd of March, 1998.

Sri P.N. Singh, learned Standing Counsel contends that once such benefit has been extended then the petitioners were to be considered at par for all purposes including conditions of pay scales and such other emoluments that were admissible to the full time Tube Well Operators. He submits that in order to avail the selection grade and the promotional pay scale respectively under the Government Order dated 2nd of December, 2000, the only requirement is that the petitioners should have been regularized and the criteria of continuous service as indicated therein would have to be counted including the period of service rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization. He submits that the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2000 does not use the words substantive service for the purpose of grant of selection grade or even for the purpose of counting the years in relation to promotional pay scale.

It is further submitted that such benefits have been extended in other decisions but the petitioners who are of the Allahabad Division have been denied the said benefit.

There is a third contention in relation to the applicability of the pension scheme.

Sri Saxena contends that no discrimination could have been practiced and the same is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue show cause to the respondents calling upon them to explain as to why the petitioners have been denied these benefits as claimed by them aforesaid by filing a counter affidavit within three weeks.

List thereafter.

Order Date :- 4.2.2010 Sahu