State of U.P. and Others vs Kamlesh Kumar Singh and Others

S.S. Chauhan, J.—Since common question of facts and law are involved in these special appeals, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement and order.

These special appeals have been filed challenging the judgement and orders dated 16.3.2010, 12.12.2013, 10.2.2012, 16.9.2011, 11.10.2011, 29.08.2013, 13.02.2012, 13.02.2012, 13.02.2012, 19.03.2010, 5.10.2010, 27.5.2010, 16.9.2010, 1.2.2012, 1.2.2012, 1.2.2012, 11.10.2011, 17.2.2012, 25.2.2012 passed by learned Single Judges in various writ petitions.

The facts leading to the present dispute, are that a Government Order was issued on 22.12.1981 creating 2174 temporary posts of Part-time Tubewell Operators at fixed pay of Rs. 150/- per month. Thereafter another Government Order was issued on 18.2.1982 prescribing the service conditions of Part-time Tubewell Operators. In pursuance to the aforesaid Government Orders, certain persons were appointed on the post in question and during the course of employment, certain dispute arose between the employees and the employer, pursuant to which a claim petition was filed by 73 persons before the Labour Court bearing No. 20 of 1983. The Labour Court decided the claim petition by means of award dated 15.7.1989, by means of which 73 Part-time Tubewell Operators were given the regular pay scale and other service benefits treating them as regular Tubewell Operators on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the State Government filed Writ Petition bearing No. 1502 (SS) of 1992. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a notification was issued by the State Government on 20.2.1992 changing the nomenclature of Part-time Tubewell Operators to Tubewell Assistants and also enhance their emolument to Rs. 250/- per month. The said action of the State Government was challenged by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others by means of Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. Similar relief has also been claimed by the similarly situated Part-time Tubewell Operators by filing various writ petitions. All the writ petitions were decided together by the learned Single Judge by means of judgement and order dated 18.5.1994, whereby writ petitions filed by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, and other similarly situated persons were allowed and the notification issued by the State Government was quashed, whereas writ petition filed by the State Government was dismissed and the State Government was directed to pay all the respondents therein the same emoluments i.e. the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed Tubewell Operators were being paid. Aggrieved against the said judgement and order, Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994 was filed by the State Government before the apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.1995. In compliance of the order of the apex Court, the State Government issued a consequential order providing pay-scale of Tubewell Operators to all the writ petitioners covered by the judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 with effect from the date of judgement i.e. 18.5.1994. Subsequently, another Government Order was issued on 10.11.1995 thereby giving the benefit of regular pay-scale of Tubewell Operators to 73 persons, who were covered by the award passed by the Labour Court dated 15.7.1989 with effect from 31.3.1989. Thereafter, another writ petition bearing No. 103 (SS) of 1996 was filed by Jai Karan Singh and others, Part-time Tubewell Operators, seeking benefit of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 as has been given to 73 persons in pursuance to the award passed by the Labour Court. Several other writ petitions were also filed claiming the same benefit. All the writ petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgement and order dated 25.4.1996 by means of which a direction was given by this Court to give the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of judgement i.e. 25.4.1996. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and order, several special appeals were filed, leading Special Appeal is of No. 152 of 1996, and a Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the special appeals vide judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 by giving the benefit of regular pay-scale to all Part-time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 18.5.1994 i.e. the date of decision of Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992 filed by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others. Thereafter another Writ Petition No. 7489(SS) of 2000 was filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and 19 others, which was allowed by this Court on the first day of hearing vide judgement and order dated 21.12.2000 giving the benefit of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989. It is alleged that writ petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition were misrepresented by the Court while passing the aforesaid order by saying that Suresh Chandra Tewari and others had been given the benefit of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No. 155 (SS) of 2001 was filed by Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 26.4.2001 on the ground that the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 squarely covered the case of the petitioners and the learned Single Judge was not made aware of the said judgement while passing the order in writ petition filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others. Against the said judgement, petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition preferred Special Appeal No. 188 of 2002, which was also dismissed. Writ Petition No. 1983(SS) of 2001 filed by Babban Prasad and others, was also dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 26.4.2001. Thereafter Writ Petition Nos. 2679(SS) of 1992 and 2728(SS) of 1993 were filed by similarly situated Part-time Tubewell Operators, which were allowed by giving the benefit of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 as the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Division Bench was not placed before the learned Single Judge. Special Appeal Nos. 548 of 2000, 549 of 2000 and 551 of 2000 were filed by the State Government against the aforesaid judgement and orders, which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.7.2005 placing reliance upon the judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 passed in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996. Thereafter, the State of U.P. filed Special Appeal No. 336 of 2001 against the judgement and order dated 21.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 7489(SS) of 2000, which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 22.5.2009 relying on the statement made by the counsel for the respondents that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had finally settled the matter. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, a review petition bearing No. 120 of 2000 was filed by the State of U.P., which too was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2010. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No. 1818 (SS) of 2002 was filed by Kamlesh Kumar Singh and others praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities to pay arrears of salary to them w.e.f. 31.3.1989 in the regular pay-scale. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2010 in terms of the order dated 21.12.2000 passed in writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 on the information given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question involved in the said writ petition had already been decided by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000, whereby this Court had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 18.5.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. Against the said order, the State Government filed Review Petition No. 304 of 2010 with some delay, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2013. In the meantime, several writ petitions were filed by the similarly situated Part-time Tube-well Operators claiming the benefit of the judgement and order passed in Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 and the said writ petitions were allowed, against which the State Government filed special appeals before this Court and thereafter special leave petitions before the apex Court, which were dismissed. Hence these special appeals.

Submission of Mrs. Bulbul Godial, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the award of the Labour Court passed in Claim Petition No. 20 of 1983 granting regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of Reference was challenged by the State by means of Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992. She further submits that during the pendency of the said writ petition, several other Part-time Tubewell Operators also filed writ petitions before this Court directly and the said writ petitions were connected with two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992 filed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, against one of the awards passed by the Labour Court and Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari vs. State of U.P. challenging the notification dated 20.2.1992 and they were decided together vide judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 by the learned Single Judge giving regular pay scale to the Part-time Tubewell Operators and thereafter the matter attained finality from the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, two Government Orders were issued, namely, 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995. Therefore, the claim by the respondents for regular pay scale in pursuance to the award dated 31.3.1989, is altogether misconceived and neither the same can be given as all other Part-time Tubewell Operators were given the regular pay scale w.e.f. 18.5.1994 in pursuance to the judgement rendered in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. The respondents after having accepted the benefit of the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 and after accepting the regular pay scale w.e.f. 18.5.1994, they can not turn around and demand arrears w.e.f. 31.3.1989 without challenging the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 as the said Government Orders were issued in pursuance to the order of this Court. Hon''ble Supreme Court wile dismissing the Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994 against the judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 observed that the Labour Court directed the Part-time Tubewell Operators be paid the same salary prospectively as was being drawn by the regular Tubewell Operators. This Court re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the Labour Court and, therefore, there was no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of two courts. It is also submitted that Writ Petition No. 103 (SS) of 1996 was filed by one Jai Karan Singh and others seeking benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and the Hon''ble Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition on 25.4.1996 giving the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of said judgement i.e. w.e.f. 25.4.1996. Against the said judgement, Special Appeal No. 152 (SB) of 1996 was filed, which was partly allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 giving the benefit of regular pay scale to all the Part-time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 18.5.1994 i.e. the date of decision in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari and others. A similar demand was made by similarly situated persons in Writ Petition No. 155 (SS) of 2001, Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, and in Writ Petition No. 1983 (SS) of 2001, Babban Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others, which were dismissed by the Hon''ble Single Judge on 26.4.2001 by observing that the judgement rendered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 152 (SB) of 1996 dated 4.12.1998 was not brought to the notice of the Writ Court, which decided Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000, Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. on 21.12.2000. The said judgement dated 26.4.2001 chalked out the history of litigation leading to the award of the Labour Court and the High Court has specifically mentioned that two Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 clearly stated that only 73 Part-time Tubewell Operators, who were covered under the Labour Court''s award, were entitled for the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and for rest of the Part-time Tubewell Operators, the matter could not be reopened and the judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 has attained finality, which has awarded the regular pay scale prospectively. It is submitted that Special Appeal No. 188 of 2002 preferred against the judgement and order dated 26.4.2001 has also been dismissed by this Court. It is also submitted that another Division Bench partly allowed Special Appeal Nos. 548 of 2000, 549 of 2000 and 551 of 2000 on 14.7.2005 relying upon earlier binding precedent in the case of Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh dated 4.12.1998. The Division Bench in its order dated 14.7.2005, directed that the petitioners-respondents shall be entitled to parity of regular pay scale only w.e.f. the date of judgement in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, i.e. with effect from 18.5.1994. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgement rendered in Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others, was decided by the Hon''ble Single Judge on the first day of hearing on 21.12.2000 on the assertion made by the petitioners therein that Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, had been given regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and the Division Bench judgement rendered in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 filed by Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh on 4.12.1998 or the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 were not brought to the notice of the Writ Court. She has further submitted that the Hon''ble Single Judges in several writ petitions filed later on the basis of judgements of two Division Benches of this Court dated 2.5.2009 and 24.5.2011, have failed to lay down the correct law on the reasoning that the Special Leave Petition against the said judgement has been dismissed as they were decided on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents therein and also could not take notice of the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 or the binding precedent of coordinate Benches of the same High Court''s judgements dated 4.12.1998 and 14.7.2005. The submission is that leading case of Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh had filed Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996, which was connected with 49 such Special Appeals filed by similarly situated Part-time Tubewell Operators and the same were decided by another Division Bench on 4.12.1998 and the said judgement was leading judgement and the said benefit ought to have been given accordingly to all the Part-time Tubewell Operators instead of giving the benefit from 31.3.1989. In sum and substance, the argument is that the Hon''ble Single Judges could not take notice of the aforesaid glaring facts, which were on record to form an opinion and allowing the regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 to the respondents.

Sri Y.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has taken shelter to various writ petitions, which have been filed, wherein a direction was given keeping in mind the principle laid down in Suresh Chandra Tewari''s case bearing Writ Petition Nos. 3558 (SS) of 1992 and 7489 (SS) of 2000. Special Appeals filed against the said judgements were also dismissed. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards some of the writ petitions which have been filed, wherein the benefit has been given w.e.f. 31.3.1989 bearing Writ Petition No. 188 (SS) of 2002. The special appeal against the said judgement was, also dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2013. In Special Appeal No. 186 of 2014, this Court considered the issue and came to the conclusion that the orders dated 4.12.1998 and 14.7.2005 passed in Special Appeal Nos. 152 (SB) of 1996 and 548 of 2000 were not taken into consideration while giving direction for payment to the Tube Well Operators with effect from the date of the judgement. It is also submitted that Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000, Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others was decided on 21.12.2000 giving a direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period from 31.3.1989 to 17.5.1994 as has been done in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari and others. Against the said judgement, Special Appeal No. 336 (SB) of 2000 was filed, which was dismissed on 22.5.2009 though the judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 passed in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 was placed before the Division Bench. The review petition filed by the State of U.P. against the said judgement and order, was also dismissed on 20.7.2010 and ultimately the judgement and orders dated 21.12.2000, 22.5.2009 and 20.7.2010 were affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of U.P. vide judgement and order dated 29.11.2010. Review Petition filed against the said judgement and order was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.10.2011 and ultimately the State Government complied with the judgement and orders of this Hon''ble Court and paid salary to the Tubewell Operators in those writ petitions with effect from 31.3.1989. Learned counsel has also submitted that similar order was passed in Writ Petition No. 9138 (SS) of 2011, Vijay Shankar and others vs. The State of U.P. and others, with the direction for payment of salary w.e.f. 31.3.1989 as has been paid in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari and others on 20.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and order, Special Appeal No. 778 of 2012 was filed by the State of U.P., which was dismissed on 11.9.2014 and the judgement and order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 11.8.2014 was followed. The special appeal was dismissed in terms of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Petition No. 5283 of 2011. Compliance report of the said order passed in the case of Vijay Shankar and others, was furnished before the Hon''ble Court and payment was made to 300 similarly situated Tubewell Operators. Submission is that one Ram Shankar filed Writ Petition No. 2557 (SS) of 1999 challenging the order dated 16.3.1999, whereby regularization of his services was refused and this Hon''ble Court allowed the said writ petition quashing the order dated 16.3.1999 and further issued a direction to the opposite parties to consider the regularization of the petitioners'' services on the post of Tubewell Operator, treating the date of his appointment as being prior to 1.10.1986. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the case of the petitioners therein was considered and their services were regularized. It is further submitted that respondents and all other similarly situated Tubewell Operators were appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed as Ram Shanker was appointed, but the payment of salary has been made from different dates and some of them were allowed the same with effect from the date of their initial appointments, while the others w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and some others w.e.f. 18.5.1994. It is further submitted that the respondents should also be paid regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989. So far the judgement rendered on 18.5.1994 is concerned, there is no dispute about the same. It is also submitted that at the time of nomenclature of the Part-time Tubewell Operators was changed into Tubewell Assistants, Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992 filed by the State Government was pending and the said nomenclature was challenged by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others by way of Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992 and both were connected together and the same were decided along with other similar matters. In the Special Appeal preferred against the said judgement, the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge was modified, whereby it was provided that the benefit of regular pay scale would be available. Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgement was also dismissed. Thereafter, the State Government complied with the judgement and awarded the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 in respect of 50 persons, who were before the Labour Court. Apart from 50 persons, some other persons were also awarded the regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and placing reliance upon the said judgement, the orders were passed in various writ petitions giving the same pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989. The series of litigations ensued and various writ petitions were filed, namely, 2936 (SS) of 2001, Roshan Lal and others vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the similar benefit was extended vide judgement and order dated 22.6.2001 as has been given in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others and Suresh Chandra Tewari and others. Special Appeal was filed by the State of U.P. bearing No. 128 of 2002 against the judgement and order dated 22.6.2001, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2010. In Writ Petition No. 4383 (SS) of 2010 filed by Aas Mohammad and others, similar benefit has been extended vide judgement and order dated 10.8.2010 and the Special Appeal No. 185 of 2011 filed against the said judgement and order by the State of U.P., was also dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2011. Application for recall of the order dated 15.3.2011 filed by the State, was also rejected. Later on, the State of U.P. filed two Special Leave Petitions before the Hon''ble Supreme Court; one bearing No. 5283 of 2011 against the judgement and order passed in Roshal Lal''s case, and the other bearing No. 13692-13693 of 2012 against the judgement and order passed in the case of Aas Mohammad''s case and both were dismissed vide judgement and order dated 11.8.2014. Thereafter another Writ Petition No. 1820 (SS) of 2002 was filed by Rajendra Kumar Tewari and others, in which the same benefit was extended by this Court and the said judgement was complied with by the State Government. Submission is that Special Leave Petition filed in one of the cases, was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, whereby payment of pay scale was granted w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and he, therefore, submits that parity of the pay scale should also be granted to the respondents w.e.f. 31.3.1989.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The sole issue to be considered and decided in these special appeal, is as to from which date the respondents are entitled to salary of regular pay scale either w.e.f. 31.3.1989 or w.e.f. 18.5.1994.

The litigations ensued between the parties, wherein certain persons approached the Labour Court by raising the claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, in which the Labour Court proceeded to allow the claim petition vide judgement and award dated 15.7.1989 allowing the payment of regular pay scale to the Part-time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 31.3.1989. Against the said judgement and award, a writ petition was filed by the State of U.P. through Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department bearing No. 1502 (SS) of 1992. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a notification was issued by the State Government changing the nomenclature of Part-time Tubewell Operators to Tubewell Assistants and also enhanced their emolument to Rs. 250/- per month. The said action of the State Government has been challenged by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others by means of Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. Both the writ petitions were decided together by means of judgement and order dated 18.5.1994, whereby writ petition filed by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, along with other similar matters was allowed and the notification issued by the State Government was quashed, whereas writ petition filed by the State of U.P. was dismissed and the State Government was directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i.e. the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed Tubewell Operators were being paid. The aforesaid judgement and order was challenged by the State Government directly by way of Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994, which was dismissed by the apex Court vide judgement and order dated 23.3.1995 and the same has attained finality. In another round of litigation, Writ Petition No. 103 (SS) of 1996, Jai Karan Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, along with other writ petitions were decided vide judgement and order dated 25.4.1996 by the learned Single Judge. The said judgement provided the regular pay scale from the date of judgement i.e. 25.4.1996. Various special appeals were filed against the judgement and order dated 25.4.1996, the leading appeal of which was Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996, Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of U.P. and others. A Division Bench while hearing the special appeals, allowed the same partly to the extent that the benefit of the regular pay scale would be available w.e.f. 18.5.1994 i.e. from the date of judgement rendered in Suresh Chandra Tewari''s case and the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge giving benefit w.e.f. 25.4.1996 was modified. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others, was allowed vide judgement and order dated 21.12.2000, whereas Writ Petition No. 155 (SS) of 2001 filed by Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others, was dismissed on the ground that order dated 4.12.1998 passed in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and order, Special Appeal No. 188 of 2002 was filed, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No. 1983 (SS) of 2001 was filed by Babban Prasad and others, which was also dismissed vide judgement and order dated 26.4.2001. Similarly situated Part-time Tubewell Operators also filed Writ Petition No. 2679 (SS) of 1992, 2728(SS) of 1993, which were allowed by another learned Single Judge as it is alleged that the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 was not placed before him and the regular pay scale was granted to them w.e.f. 31.3.1989. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad, the State of U.P. filed Special Appeal Nos. 548 of 2000, 549 of 2000 and 551 of 2000, which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 14.7.2005 placing reliance upon the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 and modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby parity of scale was granted w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and awarded parity of scale w.e.f. 18.5.1994.

The respondents have pressed their argument mainly on the ground that one Special Appeal No. 336 of 2000 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.5.2009 and against the said order, a review petition was filed, which too was also dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2010. Both the orders were challenged in Special Leave Petition before the apex Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2010. The reliance has been placed on this set of case and it has been argued that once the matter has attained finality from the apex Court, by means of which the parity of regular pay scale was granted w.e.f. 18.5.1994, the issue is not open to challenge and neither the same can be reopened as argued by the learned Additional Advocate General. The order passed in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 was also considered in Special Appeal No. 336 of 2000.

We have to consider the correct position as prevailing under law and we have also to see as to what was the judgement rendered in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari, which was decided vide judgement and order dated 18.5.1994, wherein it was held as under:-

"In the result, I allow all the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992 and quash the notification dated 20/2/1992 (as contained in annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition No. 3558/SS/1992 by which nomenclature of the petitioners has been changed to that of tube-well assistants and honorarium of Rs. 550/- per month has been fixed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i.e. in the same scale of pay in which others regularly appointed tube-well operators are being paid.

Writ Petition No. 1502/SS/1992 filed by the state, Engineer-in-Chief Irrigation Department U.P. and others vs. Makrand Singh and others, is dismissed."

The aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge itself goes to indicate that Writ Petition No. 1502(SS) of 1992 filed by the State of U.P. against the award of the Labour Court was dismissed and the notification issued by the State Government dated 20.2.1992 changing the nomenclature of the Part-time Tubewell Operators into Tube-well Assistants was quashed. The State Government was further directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i.e. in the same scale of pay in which others regularly appointed Tubewell Operators were getting. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.5.1994 was challenged by the State of U.P. by way of Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994 before the apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.1995. Against the said order, a review petition was also filed by the State of U.P., which too was dismissed by the apex Court vide order dated 18.10.1995. A confusion was prevailing regarding the date from which the arrears should be calculated and parity of scale should be given i.e. from the date of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.5.1994 or from the date of judgment rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.4.1996. The direction given in the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996 was to the effect that benefit of regular pay scale should be given to the Part-time Tubewell Operators from the date of judgment i.e. from 25.4.1996. The aforesaid judgment and order was put to challenge in Special Appeal No. 152 (SB) of 1996 with other connected special appeals, which were allowed in part vide judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 by a Division Bench of this Court and modified the order passed by the learned Single Jude by clarifying that the regular pay scale would be available to the incumbents from the date of judgement passed in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari and others vs. State of U.P. and others, dated 18.5.1994. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:-

"Applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, we allow the appeals in part and declare that the appellants are entitled to the parity of pay which has been granted by the learned Single Judge from the date of the judgments in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari and others vs. State of U.P. and others and further directed the respondents to calculate the amounts payable to the appellants with in four months from today and pay the same to them, under scheme, if any or if no scheme is prepared in case. There will no order as to costs."

The record does not indicate that any Special leave Petition was filed against the aforesaid judgement and the said judgment became final. Later on other writ petitions were decided, in which the parity of scale was given w.e.f. 31.3.1989. It so happened that Writ Petition No. 2679 (SS) of 1992, 2728 (SS) of 1993, 42196 of 1992 were pending and an interim order was granted in those writ petitions dated 30.5.1997 and thereafter it was modified vide order dated 23.3.1999, wherein it was provided that the petitioners (Tube-well Operators in those writ petitions) shall be paid the same emoluments which are being paid to Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, who were petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992 from the date of their initial appointment. A Division Bench of this Court while hearing Special Appeal No. 548 of 2000, State of U.P. and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others, along with other connected Special Appeals Nos. 549 of 2000 and 551 of 2000, disposed of the said appeals vide judgment and order dated 14.7.2005 and after taking into consideration the judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent that the petitioners therein in the writ petition would be entitled to the parity of pay scale which was granted by the learned Single Judge from the date of judgement in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. The relevant portion of the judgement is quoted as under:-

"We, therefore, allow these appeals and modify the order learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner respondents shall be entitled to the parity which is being granted by learned Single Judge from the date of judgement in case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari Petitioner No. 3558(SS) 1992. It is further provided that appellants shall calculate the amount with in three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and pay the emoluments to the petitioner respondents.

These appeals are accordingly disposed of."

The judgement in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, vs. State of U.P. and others, was rendered on 18.5.1994. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996, decided the matter finally and awarded the parity of scale to the Tube-well Operators w.e.f. 18.5.1994. The said judgement attained finality and was not put to challenge in any higher forum. The subsequent judgment passed in Special Appeal No. 548 of 2000 along with other connected special appeals dated 14.7.2005, is also to the same effect following the judgement rendered in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996. Apart from it, learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that there was two set of Tubewell Operators; one set of Tube-well Operators were those persons, who approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed the award in their favour being 73 in number, which was challenged by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department vs. Makrand Singh and others, in Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a notification was issued by the State Government dated 20.2.1992 and the same was challenged by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992 and both the writ petitions were clubbed together and decided vide judgment and order dated 18.5.1994, whereby writ petition preferred by the State of U.P. bearing No. 1502(SS) of 1992 was dismissed and the writ petition preferred by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others bearing No. 3558(SS) of 1992 along with other connected matters were allowed and the notification issued by the State Government dated 20.2.1992 was quashed and the parity of same pay scale was granted to the petitioners in which other regularly appointed Tubewell Operators are being paid, but no date was specified as to from which date the parity of scale is to be granted. The said position stands clarified after the judgement rendered in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996. The aforesaid judgement has been subsequently followed by another Division Bench of this Court. The respondents are seeking parity in regard to award of regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 though they were never before the Labour Court nor they approached the Labour Court nor any award has been passed in their favour. A Division Bench of this Court while hearing Special Appeal No. 185 of 2011, State of U.P. and others vs. Aas Mohammad and others, against which Special Leave Petition was dismissed by a non-speaking order, clarified the position in regard to payment of pay scale from the date of judgement rendered in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992 w.e.f. 18.5.1994 i.e. from the date of judgement, but not clarified as to from which date the regular pay scale would be made available to the Tubewell Operators though the Division Bench considered the judgment passed by another Division Bench in the case of Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh bearing Special Appeal No. 156 of 1996. The parity was given with Suresh Chandra Tewari''s case and the said case was clarified in Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh''s case, which became final because no special appeal was filed against the said judgment and the subsequent special appeal was also decided in the aforesaid terms. So if a judgment has been rendered in ignorance of a settled law, then the same cannot be said to be binding precedent. The aforesaid preposition of law has been considered by the apex Court in a recent judgement rendered in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others, .

We, therefore, find merit in the argument of learned Additional Advocate General and modify the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judges in all the aforesaid writ petitions by providing that the respondents would be entitled to the parity of pay scale, which has been granted by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari and others vs. State of U.P. and others, from the date of judgment i.e. w.e.f. 18.5.1994. We further give a direction to the appellants to calculate the amount payable to the respondents and pay the same to them within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before the competent authority.

Subject to above noted terms, all the special appeals are disposed of.

Since no substantial question of law of general importance is involved, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is refused.