Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Virendra Bahadur Katheria on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta
1
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) ……………...Diary No(s).20366/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-04-2023
in SAD No.532/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad)
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VIRENDRA BAHADUR KATHERIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.132409/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.132416/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No.132417/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS
and IA No.132415/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and
IA No.133345/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 25-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, A.A.G.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Adit Shah, Adv.
Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Keerti Jaya, Adv.
Mr. Mustafa Sajjad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR
Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Akshat, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. S.P. Singh, Sr.Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Adv.
Digitally signed by
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2023.07.26
18:09:18 IST
Reason: Mr. Yatish Mohan, Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The controversy involved in the instant petition pertains to removal of anomaly in the pay scale of Sub-Deputy Inspectors/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris of Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. It appears that the above-stated categories of employees were initially getting pay scale higher than the Head Master of the School. Subsequently, the Government vide G.O. dated 20.07.2001 granted higher pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the Head Masters but no corresponding revision in the pay scale of the above-mentioned categories of employees were made. This led the Uttar Pradeshiya Vidyaklaya Nirikshak Sangh to approach the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 06.05.2002 allowed their Writ Petition directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities to grant the above-mentioned categories of employees forthwith the pay scales as prayed for in the Writ Petition with a further direction to consider grant of higher pay scales than that of the Head Masters of Junior High School to these categories of employees. The High Court’s judgment came to be challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No.8869 of 2003 along with a batch of three more appeals of 2006, which were dismissed with certain observations on 08.12.2010.
3. What it appears is that the Sub-Deputy Inspectors etc. have been later on granted the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 notionally from 01.01.2006 but actually with effect from 01.12.2008, subject to an application which was to be moved before this Court for clarification of the above-mentioned judgment. That application was also summarily dismissed on 08.07.2011. The grievance of the Sub-Deputy Inspectors etc., however, is that they are entitled to the said pay scale with effect from 01.07.2001.
4. There have been various rounds of litigation between the parties. Meanwhile, most of the employees have retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
35. The issue that remains to be resolved is whether the Sub- Deputy Inspectors etc. are entitled to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 with effect from 01.07.2001 or it has been rightly granted to them with effect from 01.12.2008?
6. We have partly heard learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner – State of Uttar Pradesh as well as Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. It appears to us in the interest of justice and equity to impress upon the State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities to re- visit their earlier decision and consider the desirability of granting the above-stated pay scale from a date prior to 01.12.2008, so that the financial burden of approximately Rs.1500/- crores, as projected before us in paragraph Y of the grounds taken by the petitioner – State in the SLP paperbook, can be at laest reduced to 50% or so.
8. On this, learned Additional Solicitor General seeks and is granted six weeks’ time to have clear instructions.
9. Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents will not pursue the contempt proceedings before the High Court and on a joint request, the same shall be got adjourned for eight weeks.
10. Learned Additional Solicitor General shall ensure that this order is placed before the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh for immediate consideration.
11. Post this matter for further hearing on 12.09.2023.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)