Mahendra Singh (Work Agent) vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to provide the benefit of the judgment and order dated 13.9.2005, passed by this Hon''ble Court in writ petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004 (Ram Narain Srivastava and others v. State of U.P and others.) and other connected matters and to place the petitioner who is Working on the post of Work Agent in U.P Public Works Department, Meerut in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from the date on which the petitioners has been given the regular appointment on the post of Work Agent.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working on the post of Work Agent in Provisional Division, Public Works Department, Meerut.

Certain employees filed writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of the Court i.e. writ petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004, Ram Narayan Srivastava and others.v. State of U.P. and others. Writ Petition No. 3931 (S/S) of 2004, Shiv Bhushan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others Writ Petition No. 460 (S/S) of 2004, D.M. Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and another, Writ Petition No. 3976(S/S) of 1997 Nirmal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another and Writ Petition No. 365 (S/S) of 2001, Mohd. Farooq and others v. State of U.P. and others claiming higher pay scale. All the writ petitions were connected and vide judgment dated 13, 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 mandam 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 benefit of 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 petitioner submitted that vide order dated 13.4.2009 and 30.4.2009, Apex Court in petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 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 petition urged that in the meantime, petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit which being extended to the petitioners of the writ petitions which was allowed vide order dated 13.9.2005 by the Hon''ble Single Judge.

There appears to be force in the submission and in view of the interring order passed by the Apex Court staying the operation of the judgment of the Division Bench in special appeals, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit.

In view of the above, subject to the decision by the Apex Court in aforesaid petition for special leave to appeal, this writ petition also stands allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 13.9.2005 passed in Civil Mis. Writ Petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004 and other connected writ petition. However, the petitioner will be given his current salary in terms of judgment order dated 13.9.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 3932 (S/S) of 2004 and others connected writ petitions but the arrears as well as other benefits shall be subject to the final outcome of the SLP (Civil) Nos. 6062-6065/2010 and 9366-9369/2009 pending before the Apex Court.