Om Prakash Dubey vs State of U.P. and others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard Ms. Manju Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

It has been admitted at bar that identical controversy has already been settled at rest by this Court in a judgment and order dated 21.8.2008, passed in writ petition No. 5902 (S/S) of 2005, Ghanshyam Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others. Operative portion of the judgment and order (supra) is reproduced as under:

"It has not been disputed that most of the employees of the Wireless Department have been given the revised pay-scale in pursuance to the report of the Equivalence Committee w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accordingly, there appears to be discriminatory treatment having been done against the petitioners while issuing the impugned order dated 30.10.2004. It was incumbent on the respondents to pay the revised pay-scale to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons from 1.1.1996. Virtually, the earlier circular dated 16.8.2001 (Annexure-2) seems to have been passed in conformity with law on the subject keeping in view the report of the Equivalence Committee. The State was not justified in deviating from the grant of revised pay-scale in pursuance to the circular dated 16.8.2001 (Annexure-2). In view of the above, the order dated 30.10.2004 seems to be an arbitrary act on the part of the State and does not survive.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2004 to the extent it confines the revision of pay from issuance of order with consequential benefits. The opposite parties are directed to ensure payment of revised pay-scale to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons from 1.1.1996.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

Since the controversy has already been set at rest, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment and order (supra).

No order as to costs.