Constable No. 980600812 Vipin Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of parties'' Counsel the writ petition has been heard finally at the admission stage.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relying on the judgment and order dated 12.4.2005 passed in Nagesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Ors. passed in Writ Petition No. 54870 of 2004 submits that the Petitioners are entitled to get the salary during the training period.

It is further submitted that relying on the aforesaid judgment, this Court by order dated 16.12.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 8425 (SS) of 2010 has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra) with the direction that the Respondents shall consider for payment of salary to the Petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners after due selection on the post of Constable in the year 1998 were sent for training and during the training period they were paid stipend, however, similarly situated other persons were paid salary during the period of training in pursuance of the office order dated 8.6.1998. Subsequently the office order dated 8.6.1998 was modified and it was decided by the authorities that the trainees shall be entitled to get the stipend and the salary paid to them over and above the stipend shall be recovered. The said order dated 17.9.2002 was challenged by Nagesh Upadhya and others and this Court while deciding the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra) had held that no recovery of the difference of the amount between salary and allowances and stipend paid to the Petitioners shall be made and in case any such amount has been recovered, the same shall be restored to them. In compliance of the judgment and order passed in the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra), the State Government vide Government order dated 30th of July, 2009 had also taken a decision that no recovery of the amount paid as salary over and above the stipend shall be made.

The further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that since in the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra) it has been held that the Respondents cannot recover the amount of salary paid to the trainees during the period 1998 to 2002, therefore, it can easily be concluded that the Petitioners shall also be entitled to the salary during the period of training.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the judgment and order passed in the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra) does not lay down that the trainees are entitled to get the salary, it only provides that in case any salary is paid prior to 17.9.2002, the same would not be recovered. The State Government had also provided by order order dated 30.7.2009 that no recovery shall be made, as such it cannot be said that the Petitioners are entitled to get the salary for the training period.

I have considered various submissions made by the parties'' counsel.

So far as the order dated 16.12.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 8525 (SS) of 2010 is concerned, suffice it to mention that it only provides that the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra) and the opposite parties shall consider the matter for payment of the salary to the Petitioners expeditiously. The order does not provide that the trainees are entitled to get the salary during the training period.

There is force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the judgment in the case of Nagesh Upadhyay (supra) does not provide that the trainees are entitled to salary during the training period.

In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioners cannot be said to be entitled to get the salary over and above the stipend paid to them during the training period.

No such direction can be issued for payment of the arrears of salary and allowances to the Petitioners during the training period as well a grant of increment as claimed by the Petitioners.

The writ petition being devoid of merit it liable to be dismissed, it is dismissed accordingly.