Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Ram vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. on 23 March, 2021
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53656 of 2016 Petitioner :- Mahesh Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Agriculture Teacher in Basic Education Department and thereafter was appointed as Assistant Project Officer in the Adult Education Programme. Ultimately, petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher w.e.f. 21.05.1992. There was an apparent break in service between 01.04.1992 to 10.06.1992, which ultimately has been condoned by the State Government vide Government Order dated 23.09.2014. The respondents have ultimately granted benefit of selection grade upon completion of ten years service w.e.f. 01.04.2002. This apparently has been done relying upon a Government Order dated 20.12.2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner had completed eight years service in the year 2000, and therefore, by virtue of Government Order dated 02.12.2000 the petitioner was entitled to grant selection grade upon completion of eight years. Submission is that merely because respondents kept the matter pending with them and subsequent government order dated 20.12.2001 intervened it would not mean that accrued right in terms of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 would extinguish. It is also urged that petitioner would be entitled to promotional pay scale upon completion of six years service, and therefore, his salary as well as retiral benefits needs to be recalculated. Prayer has also been made for payment of interest upon delayed release of retiral dues in the year 2015 although petitioner retired in the year 2006.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
I have heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned State Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.
Perusal of the record would go to show that there was a break in service of petitioner between 01.04.1992 to 10.06.1992. This break was not condoned by the authorities and recommendation was made in that matter to the State Government. The State Government ultimately has condoned the absence of petitioner vide Government Order dated 23.09.2014. It is only thereafter that petitioner has been paid pension etc. It is apparent that though cause of action for getting the break in service condoned had arisen to petitioner in the year 1992 itself but no steps were taken nor any petition etc. was filed at that stage. The issue ultimately has been examined in September, 2014 and retiral benefits have been paid thereafter in the year 2015. The petitioner has also died. In such circumstances, the plea of interest on account of delayed release of retiral benefits cannot be accepted.
So far as grant of selection grade to petitioner is concerned, this Court finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, inasmuch as the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 provided for grant of selection grade upon completion of eight years service. Such length of eight years service was acquired by the petitioner in the year 2008. Merely because the respondents kept the matter pending with them and on the date of consideration a subsequent government order had come into existence would not mean that the benefits already accrued to petitioner in light of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 can be denied to him. The subsequent Government Order dated 20.12.2001 which specifies a period of ten years satisfactory service for grant of selection grade would have no applicability in the facts of the present case. The benefit of promotional pay scale in terms of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 thus needs to be examined by the authorities. As this has not been done, the impugned action in denying benefit of selection grade upon completion of eight years service cannot be sustained. Impugned action to the above extent cannot thus be sustained.
The decision taken by the authorities determining pay scale at the time of petitioner's superannuation vide order impugned dated 09.12.2015, therefore, needs to be modified by the respondents in light of the above observations. Respondent nos.4 and 5 are, therefore, directed to pass an appropriate order in that regard, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The financial benefits which are determined to be due and payable would be released within a further period of three months, thereafter.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021 Ashok Kr.