Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 22 August, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow) ************************************ Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49492-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15654 of 2017 Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Rural En Counsel for Petitioner :- Km. Vishwa Mohini,Devashish Bhatt,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Km. Vishwa Mohnini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Vikrant Rabhuvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. We have perused our order dated 23.09.2024. We find that the said orders are not being complied by the learned Standing Counsel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and A.G.A. etc. who are assigned drafting of affidavits and pleadings on behalf of the State and its Authorities. Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned CSC says that he has already circulated the aforesaid order for compliance by the counsel appearing for the State but he will again circulate it and ensure its compliance. We have already given reasons why we wanted it to be so in an earlier order dated 23.09.2024, so that we may be sure that the version of the State which is being placed before us, in fact, reflects the stand of the State and not of some sub-ordinate Officer, especially with regard to the matters as referred in our earlier order dated 23.09.2024. The Chief Standing Counsel and Government Advocate are requested to ensure strict compliance of the order dated 23.09.2024.
3. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed in Claim Petition No. 1035 of 1999 by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow by which the claim of the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.04.1999 and the consequential recovery has been quashed with a further direction that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to the said order, the same be paid back. In spite of it, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that not only the recovery is bad, but, in fact, the contention of the opposite parties that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 which was given to him vide his appointment letter dated 05.11.1997, instead, he was entitled to only pay-scale of Rs.825-1200, itself is bad.
4. The contention of the petitioner's counsel in this regard is that there is a Government Order dated 04.06.1993 which clearly refers to the fact that in the Rural Engineering Service, prior to 01.01.1986, Tracers were not given the pay-scale of Rs. 354-550, therefore, as per the advise of the Finance Department, pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 is payable. According to her, based on this order the petitioner is entitled to pay-scale of Rs.950-1500, but, the Director has misinterpreted this order and has opined that the word 'न' in the last line that is after the word "कदाचित" and before the word "अनुमन्य होगा" has been omitted. It was not open for the Director to have interpreted the order.
5. The second contention of the petitioner's counsel is that in other Departments pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 has been granted to the Tracers i.e. in the Irrigation Department, therefore, Tracers of the Rural Engineering Service, such as, the petitioner, were also entitled to the same pay-scale.
6. Thirdly, she has submitted that in the Rural Engineering Service itself there are other persons, whose details have been given in Para 14, who have been granted the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500, as such, not only the stand of the opposite parties before the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable in law but also erroneous on facts apart from being discriminatory.
7. For all these reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Tribunal has erred in ignoring and not considering these aspects of the matter and confining itself only to the recovery part.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State says that the case which is being set up here before this Court was neither pleaded in so many words nor argued before the Tribunal. Further, he has invited our attention to the relief clause in the claim petition, wherein, no such relief referable to the grievance being raised before the High Court, was prayed before the Tribunal. All that was prayed was to quash the order dated 28.04.1999 contained in Annexure No.6 which is in consequence of order dated 28.01.1999 contained in Annexure No.5 and order dated 08.12.1998 and the opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner's pay with interest and give all consequential benefits of service to the petitioner, meaning thereby, only two orders i.e. 28.04.1999 and 28.01.1999 had been challenged. He has also invited our attention to Page 28 which contains the order dated 08.12.1999, wherein, Government Order dated 04.06.1993 has been considered.
9. Apart from it, it has been stated that test checking of grant of such pay-scale to other employees was undertaken at the Headquarters and it was found that Mohd. Zahid, Gopal Sharma and Vishwanath Pratap Shukla, Tracers were given the pay-scale of Rs.330-495. This pay-scale was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to Rs.825-1200. This pay-scale Rs.825-1200 was implemented for Tracers in the Rural Engineering Service vide Government Order dated 10.08.1989. By the Government Order dated 04.06.1993 it was informed that the pay-scale of Tracers in the Rural Engineering Service, prior to 01.01.1986, was never Rs.354-550, as such, on the advice of the Finance Department, the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 'was admissible', but, this was a typographical error, as, in fact, it should have been, 'it was not admissible'.
10. He has also invited out attention to the Government Order dated 10.08.1989, according to which, the pay-scale of Tracer i.e. Rs.330-550 was revised to Rs.825-1200 vide Government Order dated 10.08.1989 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Based on it, he contended that apparently, the Government Order dated 04.06.1993 itself stated that higher pay-scale of Rs.354-550 was not admissible or payable to the Tracers of Rural Engineering Service prior to 01.01.1986, therefore, the corresponding revised pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 was not payable but due to typographical error the word 'Not' went missing in the Government Order dated 04.06.1993. Admittedly there is no challenge to the Government Order dated 10.08.1989.
11. The fact is that the pay-scale of Tracer was Rs.330-495 which was revised to Rs.825-1200, therefore, if any Tracer was given a wrong pay-scale of Rs.950-1500, it was simply an error and so far as recovery of the amount based on such error is concerned, the Tribunal has quashed orders impugned before it qua the petitioner, but, the petitioner did not claim before the Tribunal the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 on any of the grounds which are being pressed before this Court nor was it sustainable, assuming that there were documents on records based on which any such argument could have been advanced.
12. As regards, the contention that Tracers in the Irrigation Department were paid the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500, he contended that the Pay Equivalence Committee takes decision as to the pay-scales payable to officers and employees of different departments separately and makes its recommendations accordingly, therefore, merely because in the Irrigation Department, Tracers may have been granted the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 depending upon the nature of duties etc., does not mean that the Tracers of Rural Engineering Service would also be granted the said pay-scales, especially in the teeth the Government Order dated 10.08.1989 which has been specifically issued pertaining to the Rural Engineering Service that too without any challenge to the said Government Order.
13. Thirdly, he submitted that as regards the plea of discrimination vis-a-vis other Tracers of the Rural Engineering Service, the response has been made in paragraph No.21 of the second counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, wherein, it has been stated that remedial measures were taken for recovery of the excess amount paid but, in legal proceedings initiated by the employees, the recovery has been stayed, however, this does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner because in his case, the recovery has already been quashed by the Tribunal. There is no judgment in any case wherein any Tracer of the Rural Engineering Service may have been granted the higher pay-scale of Rs.950-1500.
14. For all these reasons, he says that the petitioner has no case and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find merit in the submission of Shri Raghuvanshi. There is no challenge whatsoever to the Government Order dated 10.08.1989 by which the pay-scale of Tracers of Rural Engineering Service i.e. Rs.330-495 was revised to Rs.825-1200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Without any challenge to the said Government Order dated 10.08.1989, it is unthinkable as to how a higher pay-scale could have been sought, however, as it is the contention of the petitioner's Counsel in this regard that subsequently, vide Government Order dated 04.06.1993, the higher pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 was held to be admissible to Tracers, therefore, we have perused the said document also conjointly with the Government Order dated 10.08.1989 and we find merit in the recital contained in the order of the Director dated 28.04.1999 to the effect that the Government Order dated 04.06.1993 contains a typographical error and, in fact, on a bare reading of it conjointly with the Government Order dated 10.08.1989 it is apparent that what was sought be stated in the said Government Order dated 04.06.1993 was that prior to 01.01.1986 no Tracer in the Rural Engineering Service was paid the pay-scale of Rs.354-550 which was revised to Rs.950-1500. It is apparent from the Government Order dated 10.08.1989 that the pay-scale of Tracer prior to 01.01.1986 was Rs.330-495 which was revised to Rs.825-1200. Consequently, in the last line of the Government Order dated 04.06.1993 an error has crept in where it has been inadvertently mentioned that therefore, as per the Finance Commission's advice, the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 is payable, in fact, the word 'Not' (न) in Hindi has been omitted inadvertently. Any other reading or understanding of the Government Order dated 04.06.1993 will make the last line incongruous with the preceding line. The Government Order has been rightly understood by the Headquarters of the Rural Engineering Service in its order dated 28.04.1999 and, to this extent, we sustain the order, which, in fact, has not been quashed by the Tribunal.
16. As regards, the plea of discrimination between Tracers of the Rural Engineering Service and the Irrigation Department, first and foremost, the Pay Equivalence Committee makes its recommendations in respect of each department separately and thereafter, a Government Order is issued separately revising the pay-scales. Now, the Government Order dated 10.08.1989 pertaining to the Rural Engineering Service is not under challenge and was also not under challenge before the Tribunal, therefore, this plea is not open for consideration or being raised or considered in these proceedings.
17. The other plea raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that others within the Rural Engineering Service have been paid higher pay-scale of Rs.950-1500, we have perused the second counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that remedial measures had been taken withdrawing the said pay-scale and ordering recovery of the excess amount paid but in legal proceedings initiated by the aggrieved persons, stay orders have been passed. Moreover, we find that so far as recovery is concerned, the Tribunal has already allowed the claim of the petitioner.
18. There is no judgment on record by any forum whether the Tribunal or the High Court wherein any Tracer of the Rural Engineering Service may have been granted the higher pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 1997 when the petitioner was appointed.
19. Further, once we are convinced that the pay-scale of Tracer, prior to 01.01.1986, was Rs.330-495 which was revised by Government Order dated 10.08.1989 to Rs. 825-1200 w.e.f. from 01.01.1986, then, there is no way that we can allow the claim of the petitioner for being granted a higher pay-scale of Rs.950-1500 which was the revised pay of the higher pay-scale i.e. Rs.354-550.
20. For all these reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 22.8.2025/R.K.P.