High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101343 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50323 of 2017 Petitioner :- Gaya Ram Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Suresh C Dwivedi,S.C.Dwivedi And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50317 of 2017 Petitioner :- Chandra Nath Sah Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Suresh C Dwivedi And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50320 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Suresh C Dwivedi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Shri Kant Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The petitioner of leading writ petition while working as a 'Mali' at Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad, retired on 31.08.2015. The petitioner has set up a case that during service period by an order dated 22.051996, his salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 (selection grade) by an order dated 22.05.1996 with effect from 01.7.1996, however, at the verge of retirement, i.e. on 02.07.2015, said pay scale was reduced to Rs. 941/- and accordingly, an order for adjustment was passed in regard to excess payment. 3. At this stage, petitioner of leading writ petition approached this Court by raising his grievance to correct the basic pay as earlier fixed. The said writ petition bearing No. 52040 of 2016
Decision
was disposed of by an order dated 27.10.2016 with the direction to file a representation and further direction to decide the grievance by concerned respondent. 4. In pursuance of above order, the Director passed an order dated 19.02.2017, taking note that petitioner was paid Rs. 4,73,614/- by way of a Cheque dated 01.09.2017, with specific observation that on receipt of cheque petitioner has made an endorsement that no outstanding amount remained. For reference, relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter :- "मण्डडी समममत, इललाहलाबलाद कके चकेक ससंख्यला-205732 मदनलासंक 01.9.2017 कके मलाध्यम सके र0 4,73,614.00 पला् करनके कके उपरलान्त शडी गयला रलाम ममौयर, सकेवलामनववृ्ቈ मलालडी, मण्डडी समममत, इललाहलाबलाद नके अपनके प्ቔ मदनलासंक 01.9.2017 कके दलारला गवृह स्वडीकलार मकयला गयला मक मदनलासंक 01.9.2017 तक उनकके समस्त दकेयकोሗ ककी पलाम् उन्हह हहो गई हहै तथला अब उनककी कहोई दकेयतला मवभलाग पर शकेष नहीሻ हहै एवसं मण्डडी समममत, इललाहलाबलाद तथला मवभलाग सके उन्हह अब कहोई मशकलायत नहीሻ हहै। उपरहो्ሹ सके स्प्ቖ हहै मक शडी गयला रलाम ममौयर कके समस्त दकेयकोሗ कला भभुगतलान मण्डडी समममत, इललाहलाबलाद दलारला कर मदयला गयला हहै। उनककी अर कहोई दकेयतला शकेष नहीሻ हहै। तद्नभुसलार मला० उच्च न्यलायलालय, इललाहलाबलाद कके आदकेश मदनलासंक 27.10.2016 कके समलादर मह शडी गयला रलाम ममौयर, सकेवलामनववृ्ቈ मलालडी, मण्डडी समममत, इललाहलाबलाद कला पत्यलावकेदन मदनलासंक 04.11.2016 मनस्तलाररत मकयला जलातला हहै।" 5. The aforesaid order is impugned herein in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that specific grievance of the petitioner that his pay scale was wrongly reduced at the verge of his retirement after many years and despite the direction of this Court, the same was not considered as well as within specific assertion that petitioner has never given any undertaking that no grievance was left. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his submission refers the representation dated 04.11.2016 that in pursuance of order passed by this Court, a specific averment was made to correct the pay scale as well as he also refers paragraph No.22 of this writ petition and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "That the petitioner has been given only deducted amount of Rs.4,73,614/- through cheque dated 1.9.2017 which was received by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order dated 1.9.2017 that all the dues has been paid to the petitioner and no dues of the petitioner is pending with the department while no such statement to the effect that all the dues has been paid to the petitioner, has ever been given by the petitioner before the respondents." 8. Learned counsel further submits that grievance of petitioner can still be considered and matter be remitted back to concerned respondent to pass fresh order. He also submits that in similar circumstances, the employees were benefited as well as that pay scale can not be reduced after substantial period specifically at the verge of retirement. 9. In reply to above submission, learned counsel for respondent submits that once petitioner has given an undertaking that no grievance is left, he is estopped to raise any further grievance and reply to above referred paragraph 22, learned counsel refers paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 18 of counter affidavit and for reference same are reproduced hereinafter :- "5. That in pursuance of the order/letter no. 1496 dated 22.05.1996 issued by the Director Mandi Parishad, the office order no.372.dated 25.09.1996 was issued whereby employees of Mandi Parishad / Mandi Samiti were granted higher personal pay scale by the order/letter dated 22.05.1996 issued by the Director Mandi Parishad but the said higher personal pay scale granted by office order dated 22.05.1996 / 25.09.1996, was not approved by the State Government and hence was not payable to the employees of Mandi Parishad / Mandi Samiti, therefore after issuance of the Govt. orders dated 17.01.2006 and 13.04.2010, the pay scale and other emoluments were re-determined as per guide lines issued in the Govt. order dated 17.01.2006 and 13.04.2010. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a Photostat copy of the Govt. order dated 17.01.2006 and 13.04.2010 are being is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure C.A.1 to this affidavit. 6. That as the petitioner's pay scale was also determined on higher pay scale in pursuance of order/letter dated 22.05.1996/25.09.1996 issued by the Director Mandi Parishad, which was not approved by the State Government and by way of Government Order dated 17.01.2006 and 13.04.2010 guide lines were issued to revise the pay scale of the employees, therefore, in view of the guide lines issued in the Govt. order dated 17.01.2006 and 13.04.2010, pay scale of petitioner was re- determined and it was rectified. 18. That the contents of paragraph No. 22 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner as stated, hence denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that the pay scale of the petitioner was rightly determined through order 01.08.2017 and accordingly the retiral dues of the petitioner were calculated and paid on 01.09.2017 on which petitioner had given his undertaking that he is satisfied with the payment and there is no dues upon the department." 10. Alleged endorsement made on letter dated 01.09.2017 is not on record. 11. In reply to the above submissions, learned counsel refers paragraph No.16 of the rejoinder affidavit. For reference same is reproduced hereinafter :- "That the contents of paragraph NO.18 of the counter affidavit are not correct, as stated, hence are denied and in reply thereof the contents of paragraph No.22 of the writ petition are reiterated to be correct." 12. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 13. As referred above, on basis of record, a fact is not under dispute that petitioner was granted selection grade in pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 by an order dated 22.05.1996, which was reduced by a subsequent order dated 02.07.2015 i.e. after 9 years as well as that this Court by an order dated 27.10.2016 has directed to considered the grievance of petitioner, so far as determination of the basic pay as well as that a specific submission was taken in the representation. 14. From the bare perusal of impugned order, the issue whether pay scale was rightly reduced or not was not considered mainly on the ground that purportedly, petitioner has given an undertaking that no claim left, however, the said document is not on record despite being a very relevant document. 15. The Court is of the view that even the petitioner has given an undertaking that no claim left would not debar him to raise any legally permissible grievance which was specifically raised by the petitioner in the representation. 16. The Court also takes note of order dated 01.08.2017, which is also impugned in the present case, however, the same cannot be considered to be a final order. So far as the petitioner is concerned as it was passed without giving any opportunity to petitioner and so far as undertaking is concerned the same will not be estopped the petitioner to raise any legal argument or grievance. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the matter is remitted to the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. to pass a fresh order ignoring the undertaking if given earlier by the petitioner. 18. The said respondent will also take note the order passed in the case of Vinay Kumar Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ-A No.54771 of 2013, which was followed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Dashrath Lal Patel and 8 others Vs. Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and 3 others, in Writ-A No.40066 of 2014. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within short period. 19. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and this order will govern other connected writ petitions also. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad