CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Chandra Charu Mishra vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 23 July 2003 · Citation: (2003) 5 AWC 4542

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Tripathi, J · M. Katju, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 31015 of 2003
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 374 words

M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The Petitioner has challenged the impugned Government Order dated 20.7.2001, 8.8.2001, 3.9.2001 and 20.12.2001 on the ground that they are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the Respondent to fix the pension of the Petitioner according to revised pay scale given by the fifth Pay Commission.

3.

The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Model School on 4.1.1967 and was confirmed on 1.7.1971. He was provided selection Grade from 4.1.1983 and the pay scales were revised by the Pay Commission in 1986 and 1996. The Petitioner retired on 30.6.2001. By the impugned Government Order a teacher who was in service on 1.7.2001 is entitled to get the benefit of the revised pay scale from 1.1.1996.

4.

Admittedly, the Petitioner retired on 30.6.2001 and hence he was not governed by the said Government Order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the cut off date, i.e., 1.7.2001 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not agree. Cut off dates have been upheld in several decisions of the Supreme Court, e.g., All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, ; State of Punjab and Another Vs. J.L. Gupta and Others, ; Multipurpose Health Workers Association and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, ; Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, ; Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, 1994 (4) SCC 212, etc. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others Vs. Ramjee Prasad and others, ; Union of India and Another Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, , etc. that even if no reason has been given for the basis of a cut off date, the Court cannot interfere in such matters. It is for the administration to fix the cut off date and the Court should not interfere in such administrative matters as held in the aforesaid decisions. Some persons are bound to have a grievance by a cut off date, but that would not make it arbitrary, vide Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan (supra).

5.

Petition is dismissed.