High Court · 2025

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Brijendra Mani, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Clerk in the respondent society on 22.01.1977, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Cane Inspector on 03.02.1979. It is further case of the petitioner that while working as Cane Inspector he discharge duties on the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer for a very long period. However despite various communication between the respondents that he was entitled for salary for the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer, his claim was not materialized and meanwhile he got retired on 31.12.2009.

3. Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No.49111 of 2009 with a prayer to take decision in the matter for payment of salary of the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer, for period he held said post as incharge which was disposed of by an order dated 17.09.2009 to decide the claim of the petitioner. Another Writ Petition filed in the year 1992 bearing No.1822 of 1992 was dismissed by order dated 23.12.2009 though the issue raised in this writ petition of payment of salary was not the issue therein.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that thereafter also the petitioner submits various representations which was taken cognizance and she refers an order dated 11.2.2021 whereby details of arrears of salary towards the post of Incharge, Additional Cane Marketing Officer was determined. Earlier also a favorable order was passed on 30.12.2009, still his grievance was not addressed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers that latesly by an order dated 11.02.2011, the petitioner's claim was admitted and an order was passed by the General Manager to release the arrears of salary, however, the same was also not honoured, therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition seeking following relief :- "i Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents, particularly respondents no.2 and 4, to forthwith pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary for the post of the Additional Cane Marketing Officer as are validly admissible and payable to him as per the pay fixation order dated 11.02.2011."

6. Learned counsel for petitioner refers a judgment passed by the Supreme Court State of Punjab and Another Vs. Dharampal 2017 (9) SCC 395 as well as a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board and others Vs. Tripurari Dubey Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:67382-DB.

7. Per contra Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner always remain Cane Inspector and he was never promoted on the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer nor there was any order that he was directed to discharge duties of post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer and that he would be paid salary for the said post. It may be a case that petitioner has worked as in-charge to look-after the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer for few days but there was no record that it continued for very long period. The orders referred, which appears to pass in the favour of the petitioner were later on withdrawn and never reached to its logical end. The argument of equal pay equal salary does not survive in the present case.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The petitioner has not able to show any order whereby he was directed to hold charge of the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer. A reference in the letter dated 3.3.1989 that he was considered for promotion was withdrawn and it remained unchallenged. The Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2021 whereby arrears of salary were determined was also later on set aside by a subsequent letter dated 17.03.2012.

10. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on subsequent letter dated 21.07.2016 which is passed on a complaint made to the Chief Minister, wherein a contrary observations were made that no order dated 17.03.2012 was passed or it was not cancelled the order dated 11.02.2011 but on bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2012 the above observations made in a subsequent letter dated 21.07.2016 are contrary to record. Existence of letter dated 17.3.2012 is not much disputed. For reference the contents of office memorandum dated 17.03.2012, is reproduced herein after : "ररिट ययाचचिकया ससंख्यया 1822/1992 नने्ቔपयाल सससंह चिचौहयान बनयाम यय०पपी० ककोआपरिनेचटव शशुगरि फफैक्टटपीज फनेडरिनेशन सल० व अऩ्य मम मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय इलयाहयाबयाद दयारिया पयाररित आदनेश चदनयासंक 23.12.2009 कको ययाचचिकया खयाररिज चकयने जयानने कने समयादरि मम ससंघ दयारिया जयारिपी कयायया቟ኋलय आदनेश ससं० 134 यय०पपी०एफ० /रिथया -2000 टपी०सपी० चदनयासंक 30.12.2009 एतददयारिया चनरिस्त चकयया जयातया हफै। शपी चिचौहयान दयारिया उ्ሹ पयाररित आदनेश ककी सयचिनया ससंघ अथवया चमल सचमचत कको समय सने न दनेकरि जको कपटपयर቟ኋ तरिपीकने सने गनया चनरिपी्ቌक एवसं अचतररि्ሹ गनया ्ቅय असधिकयारिपी कको वनेतन अन्तरि व अन्य लयाभ पया्቎ चकयने गयने हफै, उ्ሹ समस्त धिनरियाचश अचनयचमत एवसं मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय इलयाहयाबयाद दयारिया पयाररित आदनेश चदनयासंक 23.12.2009 कने चवपरिपीत हफै। अतएव आप अचवलम्ब उ्ሹ पया्቎ धिनरियाचश चमल ककोष मम वयापस करिनया सशुचनशशचित करिम। उ्ሹ धिनरियाचश वयापस न करिनने ककी शस्थचत मम आपकने चवरू्ቍ चनयमयानशुसयारि चवसधिक कयाय቟ኋवयाहपी अमल मम लयाई जयायनेगपी, सजसकया दयाचयत्व आप कया हकोगया।" 11. Court also takes notes of orders passed in earlier rounds of litigation that issue whether the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary was not determined. Rather a claim of the petitioner that he may be treated as an Additional Cane Marketing Officer was specifically rejected by this Court by an order 23.12.2009 passed in Writ - A No.1822 of 1992, with a specific observations that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever permitted or appointed on the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer for reference said order is reproduced hereinafter : "This case was on the cause list on 7.12.2009 and on the request of the adjournment on the ground of illness of the counsel for the petitioner, it was passed over. Thereafter again on 15.12.2009, one of the four counsels appearing for the petitioner i.e. Sri D.S.Chauhan sought adjournment on the ground of illness and while adjourning this matter, this Court observes that on the next date, no adjournment shall be permitted at the instance of the petitioner's counsel. Today again Sri D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment on the ground of illness. I am not inclined to adjourn this matter now particularly in view of the fact that there are three other counsels namely Sri Devendra Dahma, Sri A.K.Misra, and Sri S.P.Kesharwani, whose names have been shown in the cause list. I have perused the record. The petitioner appears to work as Cane Inspector. For some time he was given the charge of Addl. Cane Marketing Officer which was later on withdrawn. The petitioner claimed that he should be treated as Addl. Cane Marketing Officer. By means of the impugned order dated 7.10.1991 he has been informed that his substantive appointment is Cane Inspector and therefore, his designation is rightly shown. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever promoted or appointed on the post of Addl. Cane Marketing Officer. The petitioner was appointed in accordance with the rules on the substantive post of Cane Inspector. He, therefore, has rightly been designated as Cane Inspector. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

12. The Court also takes note of Dharampal (Supra) however, the Supreme Court therein has granted salary of the post wherein the petitioner therein was incharge on the basis of regulations, which provided such relief, however, in the present case the learned counsel for petitioner was miserable failed to show any such provision which may applicable to petitioner.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances all arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner has no legal basis. The petitioner has not able to show any documents that he was ever promoted or appointed as Additional Cane Marketing Officer and the findings returned in this regard by this Court vide an order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Writ - A No.1822 of 1992 was remained unchallenged. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner has for certain period worked as Incharge, Additional Cane Marketing Officer, however, in absence of any service regulation the claim for salary for the said post cannot be accepted. The communications between the respondents were never reached to its logical end, rather orders passed in favour of the petitioner was specifically withdrawn and on basis of an order passed subsequent cannot be a ground to accept the claim of the petitioner since a discussed above, observation made therein were contrary to records. The manner of calculation of details of order dated 11.2.2021 also does not appear to be based on legal premises.

14. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Tripurari Dubey (Supra) is also misplaced since in present case petitioner is failed to show any order to work as Incharge, Additional Cane Marketing Officer, till regular appointment as well as whether responsibilities were greater. In Tripurari Dubey (Supra) a teacher was by a specific order directed to discharge duties of Officiating Principal, which is not the case in hand.

15. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merit is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Md Faisal MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Brijendra Mani, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Clerk in the respondent society on 22.01.1977, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Cane Inspector on 03.02.1979. It is further case of the petitioner that while working as Cane Inspector he discharge duties on the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer for a very long period. However despite various communication between the respondents that he was entitled for salary for the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer, his claim was not materialized and meanwhile he got retired on 31.12.2009.

3. Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No.49111 of 2009 with a prayer to take decision in the matter for payment of salary of the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer, for period he held said post as incharge which was disposed of by an order dated 17.09.2009 to decide the claim of the petitioner. Another Writ Petition filed in the year 1992 bearing No.1822 of 1992 was dismissed by order dated 23.12.2009 though the issue raised in this writ petition of payment of salary was not the issue therein.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that thereafter also the petitioner submits various representations which was taken cognizance and she refers an order dated 11.2.2021 whereby details of arrears of salary towards the post of Incharge, Additional Cane Marketing Officer was determined. Earlier also a favorable order was passed on 30.12.2009, still his grievance was not addressed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers that latesly by an order dated 11.02.2011, the petitioner's claim was admitted and an order was passed by the General Manager to release the arrears of salary, however, the same was also not honoured, therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition seeking following relief :- "i Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents, particularly respondents no.2 and 4, to forthwith pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary for the post of the Additional Cane Marketing Officer as are validly admissible and payable to him as per the pay fixation order dated 11.02.2011."

6. Learned counsel for petitioner refers a judgment passed by the Supreme Court State of Punjab and Another Vs. Dharampal 2017 (9) SCC 395 as well as a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board and others Vs. Tripurari Dubey Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:67382-DB.

7. Per contra Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner always remain Cane Inspector and he was never promoted on the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer nor there was any order that he was directed to discharge duties of post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer and that he would be paid salary for the said post. It may be a case that petitioner has worked as in-charge to look-after the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer for few days but there was no record that it continued for very long period. The orders referred, which appears to pass in the favour of the petitioner were later on withdrawn and never reached to its logical end. The argument of equal pay equal salary does not survive in the present case.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The petitioner has not able to show any order whereby he was directed to hold charge of the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer. A reference in the letter dated 3.3.1989 that he was considered for promotion was withdrawn and it remained unchallenged. The Office Memorandum dated 11.02.2021 whereby arrears of salary were determined was also later on set aside by a subsequent letter dated 17.03.2012.

10. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on subsequent letter dated 21.07.2016 which is passed on a complaint made to the Chief Minister, wherein a contrary observations were made that no order dated 17.03.2012 was passed or it was not cancelled the order dated 11.02.2011 but on bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2012 the above observations made in a subsequent letter dated 21.07.2016 are contrary to record. Existence of letter dated 17.3.2012 is not much disputed. For reference the contents of office memorandum dated 17.03.2012, is reproduced herein after : "ररिट ययाचचिकया ससंख्यया 1822/1992 नने्ቔपयाल सससंह चिचौहयान बनयाम यय०पपी० ककोआपरिनेचटव शशुगरि फफैक्टटपीज फनेडरिनेशन सल० व अऩ्य मम मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय इलयाहयाबयाद दयारिया पयाररित आदनेश चदनयासंक 23.12.2009 कको ययाचचिकया खयाररिज चकयने जयानने कने समयादरि मम ससंघ दयारिया जयारिपी कयायया቟ኋलय आदनेश ससं० 134 यय०पपी०एफ० /रिथया -2000 टपी०सपी० चदनयासंक 30.12.2009 एतददयारिया चनरिस्त चकयया जयातया हफै। शपी चिचौहयान दयारिया उ्ሹ पयाररित आदनेश ककी सयचिनया ससंघ अथवया चमल सचमचत कको समय सने न दनेकरि जको कपटपयर቟ኋ तरिपीकने सने गनया चनरिपी्ቌक एवसं अचतररि्ሹ गनया ्ቅय असधिकयारिपी कको वनेतन अन्तरि व अन्य लयाभ पया्቎ चकयने गयने हफै, उ्ሹ समस्त धिनरियाचश अचनयचमत एवसं मया० उच्चि न्ययाययालय इलयाहयाबयाद दयारिया पयाररित आदनेश चदनयासंक 23.12.2009 कने चवपरिपीत हफै। अतएव आप अचवलम्ब उ्ሹ पया्቎ धिनरियाचश चमल ककोष मम वयापस करिनया सशुचनशशचित करिम। उ्ሹ धिनरियाचश वयापस न करिनने ककी शस्थचत मम आपकने चवरू्ቍ चनयमयानशुसयारि चवसधिक कयाय቟ኋवयाहपी अमल मम लयाई जयायनेगपी, सजसकया दयाचयत्व आप कया हकोगया।" 11. Court also takes notes of orders passed in earlier rounds of litigation that issue whether the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary was not determined. Rather a claim of the petitioner that he may be treated as an Additional Cane Marketing Officer was specifically rejected by this Court by an order 23.12.2009 passed in Writ - A No.1822 of 1992, with a specific observations that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever permitted or appointed on the post of Additional Cane Marketing Officer for reference said order is reproduced hereinafter : "This case was on the cause list on 7.12.2009 and on the request of the adjournment on the ground of illness of the counsel for the petitioner, it was passed over. Thereafter again on 15.12.2009, one of the four counsels appearing for the petitioner i.e. Sri D.S.Chauhan sought adjournment on the ground of illness and while adjourning this matter, this Court observes that on the next date, no adjournment shall be permitted at the instance of the petitioner's counsel. Today again Sri D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournment on the ground of illness. I am not inclined to adjourn this matter now particularly in view of the fact that there are three other counsels namely Sri Devendra Dahma, Sri A.K.Misra, and Sri S.P.Kesharwani, whose names have been shown in the cause list. I have perused the record. The petitioner appears to work as Cane Inspector. For some time he was given the charge of Addl. Cane Marketing Officer which was later on withdrawn. The petitioner claimed that he should be treated as Addl. Cane Marketing Officer. By means of the impugned order dated 7.10.1991 he has been informed that his substantive appointment is Cane Inspector and therefore, his designation is rightly shown. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever promoted or appointed on the post of Addl. Cane Marketing Officer. The petitioner was appointed in accordance with the rules on the substantive post of Cane Inspector. He, therefore, has rightly been designated as Cane Inspector. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

12. The Court also takes note of Dharampal (Supra) however, the Supreme Court therein has granted salary of the post wherein the petitioner therein was incharge on the basis of regulations, which provided such relief, however, in the present case the learned counsel for petitioner was miserable failed to show any such provision which may applicable to petitioner.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances all arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner has no legal basis. The petitioner has not able to show any documents that he was ever promoted or appointed as Additional Cane Marketing Officer and the findings returned in this regard by this Court vide an order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Writ - A No.1822 of 1992 was remained unchallenged. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner has for certain period worked as Incharge, Additional Cane Marketing Officer, however, in absence of any service regulation the claim for salary for the said post cannot be accepted. The communications between the respondents were never reached to its logical end, rather orders passed in favour of the petitioner was specifically withdrawn and on basis of an order passed subsequent cannot be a ground to accept the claim of the petitioner since a discussed above, observation made therein were contrary to records. The manner of calculation of details of order dated 11.2.2021 also does not appear to be based on legal premises.

14. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Tripurari Dubey (Supra) is also misplaced since in present case petitioner is failed to show any order to work as Incharge, Additional Cane Marketing Officer, till regular appointment as well as whether responsibilities were greater. In Tripurari Dubey (Supra) a teacher was by a specific order directed to discharge duties of Officiating Principal, which is not the case in hand.

15. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merit is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Md Faisal MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad