Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Vikram Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 24 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171482 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14045 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ajeet Vikram Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Daya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos.1 to 5.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the sixth and seventh respondent.
3. The case of the writ petitioners are that the sixth respondent is an institution, namely, Tilak Dhari Post Graduate College situated at Jaunpur affiliated to Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The writ petitioners claim to be appointed as Routine Grade Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4090 on different dates, 29.01.2004, 04.01.1999, 01.02.1999, 06.07.2000, and 01.06.2004. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the second respondent, Director, Higher Education, U.P., Lucknow, by virtue of the order dated 07.01.2011 has fixed the pay band of the petitioners and has made admissible to him the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 fixing grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- in place of the grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- from the date of the promotion i.e. 07.02.2008.
4. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission (2008), the State Government issued a government order dated 26th September, 2013, whereby a policy has been floated to revise the pay scale of the Routine Clerks and the pay scale has been fixed Rs. 5200- 20200/- in grade pay of Rs. 2,000/-. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that after completion of 10 years of service post appointment, the writ petitioner is entitled to Ist A.C.P. after completion of 16 years and 26 years, he is entitled to IInd A.C.P. and IIIrd A.C.P.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he has been granted the benefits, however on the basis of the audit objections, the recovery was being sought to be made against the writ petitioner. Compelled with these circumstances, the writ petitioner along with others preferred Writ - A No. 8376 of 2021 (Ajeet Vikram Singh and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others), in which on 27.07.2001, the following orders were passed :-
"The present writ petition has has been filed inter-alia with the following reliefs:-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the audit report dated 19.11.2018 issued by respondent No. 6 to the extent reducing the salary of the petitioners and also to recover the amount from the petitioners (Annexure:14 to the writ petition)
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the salary to the petitioners as has been paid to them upto July 2020 without reducing any amount in compliance of audit report (Annexure: 14 to the writ petition)
iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioners deducted from their salary with effect from August, 2020 onwards in compliance of audit report (Annexure:14 to the writ petition)
iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioners in pursuance of audit report (Annexure:14 to the writ petition)
v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pass order on the compliance report submitted by the college on 16.9.2020 (Annexure:17 to the writ petition)."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the audit objection was raised on 19.11.2018 to the extent reducing the salary of the petitioners and also to recover the amount from the petitioners since July 2020. The respondents in most arbitrary manner also started deducting the salary in compliance of the audit objection. He submits that all the petitioners are working as Class-III employee (Routine Grade Clerk) and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab V. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, arrears cannot be recovered from the petitioners. He apprised the Court that in response to the notice, the Management has already responded to the Director, Local Accounts & Audit Department, U.P. Praygraj. A prayer has been made that till the disposal of the audit objection, no coercive action may be taken against the petitioners otherwise, petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, once the proceedings is on, this Court hope and trust that the Director, Local Accounts & Audit Department, U.P. Prayagraj may examine the matter and remedied the situation but certainly taking note of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
For a period of three months or till the disposal of the objection, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in view of audit report dated 19.11.2018.
Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of."
6. The writ petitioner further asserts that he has filed objection. However, the fourth respondent by virtue of the order dated 25.04.2023, Annexure No.1 at page No. 27 and the consequential order passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Varanasi, dated 23.05.2023, Annexure No.3 at Page No.31 of the paper book, the objections of the writ petitioner has not been considered in true perspective.
7. Questioning the orders dated 25.04.2023 and 23.05.2023, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that in view of the order dated 27.07.2021, passed in Writ - A No. 8376 of 2021, in which the writ petitioners are parties, the respondents were to decide the matter in true perspective. However, by virtue of the order impugned, the claim of the writ petitioner has been negated by passing a non speaking, unreasoned order without recording any finding in that regard. He submits that the premise, on which the order has been passed is wholly unsustainable and it does not partake the character of any reason.
9. Sri Daya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos.1 to 5 on the other hand submits that the order in question is a non speaking, unreasoned one and according to him it does not test the validity of a legal order and according to him, the orders be set aside, the matter be remitted back to the fourth respondent to pass afresh order in accordance with law. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
10. Though, this Court in normal and ordinary circumstances could have undertaken the task of deciding the issue on merits, however as rightly pointed out by Sri Daya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel, the matter is to be decided at the very first instance by the fourth respondent, Director, Local Accounts and Audit Department, U.P., Prayagraj, therefore this Court is of the opinion that the matter be remitted back to it to pass fresh order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in the following terms :-
(a) The order dated 25.04.2023 and 23.05.2023 is set aside;
(b) The matter stands remitted back to the fourth respondent to decide the matter afresh within a period of a month from the date of the production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the following fundamental and core issues :-
(i) The entitlement of the financial benefits, which the writ petitioner claims to be legally granted;
(ii) Import and the impact of the Government Orders as well as the scheme applicable for payment of A.C.P.(s) and its applicability in the case of the writ petitioner;
(c) Import and the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court on the issue on the subject;
(d) Any other incidental or ancillary issue connected with the matter in question.
12. Since, the writ petition has been decided on the ground that the order in question is a non speaking order, thus the passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated it on merits, as the second respondent shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law without being obsessed or influenced by any of the observations made herein above.
13. As sixth and seventh respondents are not represented and their version has not been taken, so they may be put to notice and their version be also taken before passing fresh order.
14. The writ petitioner shall serve a copy of this order upon the fourth respondent within a period of ten days' from today and the fourth respondent shall decide the lis and the entitlement of the writ petitioner within a further period of one month.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2023 S Rawat