Hari Ram Yadav and Others vs State of U P Thr. Its Prin. Secy. Second Education and Others

Hon''ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 to 6.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear the matter finally. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition has already been decided by this Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 10665 of 2006 and another connected Writ Petition No. 13347 of 2006, decided on 30.03.2009, whereby this Court at Allahabad while allowing both the writ petitions, set-aside the impugned order and directed that petitioners must be paid the same payscale as is being paid to the teachers of schools. It was also provided that in accordance with the above authority of the Supreme Court, the pay-scale shall be granted to the petitioners since the date of filing of the earlier writ petition (i.e. W. P. No. 49384 of 2004) decided on 22.11.2004.

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

In view of the above, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 10665 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 13347 of 2006 and the benefit of the order and judgment dated 30.03.2009 shall also be extended to the petitioners of the instant writ petition.

No order is passed as to costs.