Tej Pratap Singh vs U.P. Sainik Punarwas Nidhi

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

a- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29-1-2008 passed by respondent No. 2.

b- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of revised pay scale in accordance with the recommendation of V Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 along with interest.

c- Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d- Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

According to the petitioner he was appointed as Tractor Supervisor in the Furgusen Tractor at Patharchatta Farm vide appointment letter dated 17-6-1955 issued by Commandant, Land School, Rarojini Nagar, Lucknow and he attained superannuation on 31-7-1997 from the post of Assistant Farm Manager, Patharchatta Farm.

The above fact is not disputed on behalf of the respondents.

It is not disputed that the post held by the petitioner in the present writ petition is non-pensionable. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had retired from service from the State of Uttar Pradesh while he was posted as Assistant Farm Manager, Patharchatta, presently Uttarakhand Sainik Punarwas Sanstha, Haldi, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to the controversy involved in Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2003(S/S) Ashok Kumar Tewari and Ors. v. U.P. Sainik Punarvas Nidhi through its Secretary, Raj Bhawan Lucknow and Ors. and since the order dated 10-8-2004 passed by this Court has been upheld in Special Appeal, therefore, the petitioner in the present writ petition is also entitled to get the benefits of the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 till the date of his superannuation on 31-7-1997.

The controversy involved in the present writ petition as emerges out from the facts of the case is that whether the petitioner is entitled for the revision of pay scale, as has been made by the 5th Pay Commission. This issue has been decided by this Court vide order dated 10-8-2004, passed in Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2003(S/S) Ashok Kumar Tewari and Ors. v. U.P. Sainik Punarvas Nidhi through its Secretary, Raj Bhawan Lucknow and others thereby holing that petitioners are entitled to the revision of pay-scale as per recommendations of 5th Pay Commission.

The judgment and order dated 10-8-2004 was upheld in Special Appeal No. 95 of 2005 by order dated 29-09-2006.

The only issue remains for consideration whether the petitioner is entitled to get difference of revised pay scale from 1-1-1996 to 31-7-1997.

The petitioner had retired from service on 31-7-1997 prior to the formation of new State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), therefore, the respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to make the payment of the difference of pay arising out of revised pay-scale as per recommendations of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 till date of his retirement of the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 10-8-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2003(S/S) Ashok Kumar Tewari and Ors. v. U.P. Sainik Punarvas Nidhi through its Secretary, Raj Bhawan Lucknow and others. The impugned order dated 29-1-2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to make payment of the amount accrued to the petitioner as per recommendations of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 till 31-7-1997 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.