Deepak Kumar and Another vs State of U.P.

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—It has been admitted at bar that the present controversy in question has been settled by this Court. Since, controversy has already been settled by this Court, I proceed to decide the present writ petition finally with the consent of parties'' counsel.

By means of present writ petition, the Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to provide the benefit of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2005 passed by this Hon''ble Court in writ petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004 Ram Narain Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors. and other connected matters and to place the Petitioners who are working on the post of Work Agents in U.P Public Works Department in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from the date on which the Petitioners have been given the regular appointment on the post of Work Agent.

The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are working on the post of Work Agent in Public Works Department, Kanpur on the basis of work charge.

Certain employees filed writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of this Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004, Ram Narayan Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 3931 (S/S) of 2004, Shiv Bhushan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 460 (S/S) of 2004, D.N. Shukla and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. Writ Petition No. 3976(S/S) of 1997, Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. and Writ Petition No. 3650 (S/S) of 2001, Mohd. Farooq and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. claiming higher pay scale. All the writ petitions were connected and vide judgment dated 13th September, 2005 passed by Hon''ble Single Judge were allowed and the Petitioners holding the post of Work Agent were held to be entitled to draw the salary of Rs. 1200-1800 with effect from the pay scales being implemented in the State of U.P. and Rs. 4000-6000 effect from 1.1.1996 and accordingly mandamus was issued to the State Government to implement the aforesaid pay scales in the case of the Petitioners of said writ petitions. The Petitioner of the present writ petition being identically situated made a representation claiming of the said judgment which is still pending. Learned Standing Counsel urged that the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge was set aside in Special Appeal No. 57 of 2006, filed by the State.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that vide order dated dated 13.04.2009 and 30.04.2009, apex Court in petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s). 6062-6065/2009 and 9366-9369/2009 stayed the operation of the order passed by Division Bench dated 18.12.2009.

On the strength of the interim order, passed by the apex Court in the above petitions for leave to special appeal staying the judgment of the special appeal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that in the meantime, Petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit which is being extended to the Petitioners of the writ petitions which was allowed vide order dated 13.09.2005 by the Hon''ble Single Judge. There appears to be force in the submission and in view of the interim order passed by the apex Court staying the operation of the judgment of the Division Bench in Special appeals, the Petitioners are also entitled to the same benefit.

In view of the above, subject to the decision by the apex Court in the aforesaid petition for special leave to appeal, this writ petition also stands allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004 and other connected writ petitions. However, the Petitioners will be given their current salary in terms of judgment and order dated 13.09.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004 and other connected writ petitions but the arrears as well as other benefits shall be subject to the final outcome of the SLP (Civil) Nos. 6062-6065/2009 and 9366-9369/2009 pending before the apex Court.