Ram Dev (Baildar) vs State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the instant writ petition.

I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the grievances of the petitioner in the light of the judgments passed by this Hon''ble Court in matter of Abdul Haq and others versus State of UP and others as well as the directives of Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana & others versus Ravindra Kuamr & others, and decide the representation dated 10.11.2011 contained in Annexure No. 6 to the instant writ petition.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide salary from the current month in the promotional scale, next higher to the scale, petitioner is getting salary presently, with an additional increment to the petitioner, and to pay the difference of salary along with an interest @ 12% according tot he circular dated 2.12.2000, till date of actual payment reckoned from the initial date of engagement.

III. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem just fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

IV. Allow this writ petition of the petitioner with costs.

From a perusal of the aforesaid quoted prayers, it appears that the petitioner who was initially working in the work charge establishment of the respondents, was subsequently given regular appointment and is praying that the services rendered by him in work charge establishment should be counted for the purposes of grant of revised pay scales, additional increments and promotional pay scale etc.

As per the prayer in the instant writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is based on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ravindra Kuamr and others, in Civil Appeal No. 6740-6741 of 1997.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.11.2010 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 34 of 2010, State of U.P. and others Versus Ram Pal and others. In the said case the Division Bench had occasion to consider the earlier judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Single Judge in the case of Hansa Dutt Bahuguna and others Versus State of U.P. and another, the case decided by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Versus Ravindra Kumar and others and also the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and Others, .

After consideration of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Division Bench on 24.11.2010 in the aforesaid case of State of U.P. and others Versus Ram Pal and others in Special Appeal Defective No. 34 of 2010 has observed as under:-

The Apex Court pronounced that the services rendered by the respondents as work-charge/adhoc employees, cannot be clubbed with their services rendered after regularization, for the purpose of grant of additional increments, promotional pay scale etc. unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or in the scheme of regularization.

The law, thus, pronounced by the Supreme Court does not allow the respondents to get their period of services rendered in the work-charge establishment as work-charge employees, to be counted along with the services they rendered after regularization in the regular establishment for the purpose of getting the benefit of increments etc.

The Supreme Court also considered the case of Ravindra Kumar and held that it was an order passed on concession of the State and such an order was not binding.

That being the legal position with respect to the status of services rendered by the respondents as work-charge employees, that period of services cannot be counted with the period of services rendered after regularization for claiming the benefits, claimed in the writ petition.

The special appeal is allowed.

The judgment and order dated 14.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 6603 (SS) of 2007, therefore cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pal (supra), the writ petition lacks merits, thus, is hereby dismissed.