High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Lucknow Devp. Authoritya Lko.Through The Vice Chairman And Respondent :- Ashok Misra And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Singh,Abhay Kumar,Anuj Kudesia,K.Chandra,Madan Mohan Pandey,Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Tiwari,Ashok Kr. Srivsatava,G.S. Srivastava,Piyush Chandra Agarwal,R.C. Srivastava,Rajnish Ojha,Sunil Kr.Srivastava Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Piyush Chandra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged an ex-parte judgment dated 11.09.2003 passed in Claim Petition No. 1029 of 2002 by which claim of the respondent no.1 to the pay-scale of Rs.550-940 w.e.f. 07.12.1983 has been allowed and the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 29.07.2002 by which claim was declined by the petitioners, has been quashed. Consequential revision of Pay-scale with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment has also been awarded apart from cost of Rs.500/-.

3. As regards the judgment being ex-parte learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Para 13 to 20. Apart from it, he addressed us merits of the case also.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Draftsman Grade- I on 07.12.1983 by the Lucknow Development Authority in the Pay-scale of Rs.420- 735 which was the revised pay-scale effective from 13.01.1983 by virtue of an order of the same date. More than 17 years after his appointment and after he had been receiving the salary in the said pay-scale revised from time to time, he is said to have submitted a representation dated 30.06.2000 claiming pay-scale of Rs.550-940 with effect from his date of appointment. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2002 and it is this order which was put to challenge in Claim Petition No. 1029 of 2002. The relief clause of claim petition reads as under:- "(i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 29.7.2002 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the claim petition by means of which the petitioner's representation was rejected holding thereby that the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Draftsman Grade-I of Rs.325-575 (revised at that time to Rs.550-940) at the time of initial appointment and as revised from time to time along with its arrears with interest @ 18% per annum and that he is entitled to all other benefits of promotion, seniority etc. arising thereof in consequence thereof and as has been given to others mentioned in the claim petition."

5. As already stated the proceedings were held ex-parte and the same were allowed accepting the averments made in the claim petition. It was also observed in Para 7 of the impugned judgment that in para-25 of the claim petition it has been stated that one Smt. Anita Srivastava who was also appointed on the post of Draftsman, Grade-I was provided a different pay scale although the petitioner and Smt. Anita Srivastva were performing same duties. Based thereon an opinion was formed by the Tribunal that the action was violative of the principles of natural justice and can not be sustained. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed.

6. We asked the learned counsel for the respondents to kindly place before us any document which could demonstrate that Smt. Anita Srivastava, who, in fact, was appointed as Draftsman Grade-I much prior to the appointment of the respondent no. 1 i.e. on 01.01.1981 was ever granted the pay- scale of Rs.550-940 w.e.f. 01.01.1983, no such document could be placed. A bald averment in the claim petition was accepted by the Tribunal obviously because the proceedings were held ex-parte and there was no rebuttal of the said averment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now demonstrated the correct facts before us, according to which, Smt. Anita Srivastava was appointed as Draftsman Grade-I on 01.01.1981 in the pay-scale of Rs.325-575 and, subsequently, by an order dated 13.01.1983 the said scale was revised to Rs.420-735 which was given to her. Subsequent to the aforesaid revision, the respondent no. 1 was appointed on the same post on 07.12.1983. Consequently, he was given the pay-scale of Rs.420-735. He has stated that Smt. Anita Srivastava was never given the pay-scale of Rs.550-940 either from the date of her initial appointment or from 01.01.1983. In this regard he has invited our attention to Page 35 of the writ petition which is a Government Order dated 31.07.1982 addressed to the Chief Town and Country Planner, U.P. Lucknow which is an Organization under the Government distinct from the Lucknow Development Authority and by this Government Order the pay- scale of Head Draftsman, which was Rs.325-575, was revised to Rs.550-940. The submission is that this Government Order was firstly not applicable in the LDA. Secondly, the respondent/claimant was never appointed as Head Draftsman. For all these reasons, he says that an error has crept into the judgment of the Tribunal. It was also his submission that even if the proceedings were held to be ex-parte at least the Tribunal should have satisfied itself firstly as to whether there was any Rule or Government Order permitting the grant of such pay- scale, as was being claimed, to the respondent-claimant or not. Secondly, whether any other similarly situated person such as Smt. Anita Srivastava had been actually granted the said benefit. Without satisfying itself on the aforesaid counts it has mechanically allowed the claim petition of the respondent no. 1, which is unsustainable.

8. On being confronted Shri P.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that all these documents were before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal is presumed to have seen the same and had passed a correct judgment. However, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Government Orders which have now been brought on record by the petitioner were not placed by the respondent-claimant before the Tribunal resulting in the error.

9. As, none of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner could be satisfactorily explained or rebutted and as, we are of the considered opinion that for the facts and reasons noticed above the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned judgment, we, accordingly, quash impugned judgment and dismiss the claim petition for the reasons aforesaid.

10. The writ petition is allowed. . (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2025 R.K.P. RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Lucknow Devp. Authoritya Lko.Through The Vice Chairman And Respondent :- Ashok Misra And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Singh,Abhay Kumar,Anuj Kudesia,K.Chandra,Madan Mohan Pandey,Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Tiwari,Ashok Kr. Srivsatava,G.S. Srivastava,Piyush Chandra Agarwal,R.C. Srivastava,Rajnish Ojha,Sunil Kr.Srivastava Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Piyush Chandra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged an ex-parte judgment dated 11.09.2003 passed in Claim Petition No. 1029 of 2002 by which claim of the respondent no.1 to the pay-scale of Rs.550-940 w.e.f. 07.12.1983 has been allowed and the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 29.07.2002 by which claim was declined by the petitioners, has been quashed. Consequential revision of Pay-scale with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment has also been awarded apart from cost of Rs.500/-.

3. As regards the judgment being ex-parte learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Para 13 to 20. Apart from it, he addressed us merits of the case also.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Draftsman Grade- I on 07.12.1983 by the Lucknow Development Authority in the Pay-scale of Rs.420- 735 which was the revised pay-scale effective from 13.01.1983 by virtue of an order of the same date. More than 17 years after his appointment and after he had been receiving the salary in the said pay-scale revised from time to time, he is said to have submitted a representation dated 30.06.2000 claiming pay-scale of Rs.550-940 with effect from his date of appointment. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2002 and it is this order which was put to challenge in Claim Petition No. 1029 of 2002. The relief clause of claim petition reads as under:- "(i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 29.7.2002 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the claim petition by means of which the petitioner's representation was rejected holding thereby that the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Draftsman Grade-I of Rs.325-575 (revised at that time to Rs.550-940) at the time of initial appointment and as revised from time to time along with its arrears with interest @ 18% per annum and that he is entitled to all other benefits of promotion, seniority etc. arising thereof in consequence thereof and as has been given to others mentioned in the claim petition."

5. As already stated the proceedings were held ex-parte and the same were allowed accepting the averments made in the claim petition. It was also observed in Para 7 of the impugned judgment that in para-25 of the claim petition it has been stated that one Smt. Anita Srivastava who was also appointed on the post of Draftsman, Grade-I was provided a different pay scale although the petitioner and Smt. Anita Srivastva were performing same duties. Based thereon an opinion was formed by the Tribunal that the action was violative of the principles of natural justice and can not be sustained. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed.

6. We asked the learned counsel for the respondents to kindly place before us any document which could demonstrate that Smt. Anita Srivastava, who, in fact, was appointed as Draftsman Grade-I much prior to the appointment of the respondent no. 1 i.e. on 01.01.1981 was ever granted the pay- scale of Rs.550-940 w.e.f. 01.01.1983, no such document could be placed. A bald averment in the claim petition was accepted by the Tribunal obviously because the proceedings were held ex-parte and there was no rebuttal of the said averment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now demonstrated the correct facts before us, according to which, Smt. Anita Srivastava was appointed as Draftsman Grade-I on 01.01.1981 in the pay-scale of Rs.325-575 and, subsequently, by an order dated 13.01.1983 the said scale was revised to Rs.420-735 which was given to her. Subsequent to the aforesaid revision, the respondent no. 1 was appointed on the same post on 07.12.1983. Consequently, he was given the pay-scale of Rs.420-735. He has stated that Smt. Anita Srivastava was never given the pay-scale of Rs.550-940 either from the date of her initial appointment or from 01.01.1983. In this regard he has invited our attention to Page 35 of the writ petition which is a Government Order dated 31.07.1982 addressed to the Chief Town and Country Planner, U.P. Lucknow which is an Organization under the Government distinct from the Lucknow Development Authority and by this Government Order the pay- scale of Head Draftsman, which was Rs.325-575, was revised to Rs.550-940. The submission is that this Government Order was firstly not applicable in the LDA. Secondly, the respondent/claimant was never appointed as Head Draftsman. For all these reasons, he says that an error has crept into the judgment of the Tribunal. It was also his submission that even if the proceedings were held to be ex-parte at least the Tribunal should have satisfied itself firstly as to whether there was any Rule or Government Order permitting the grant of such pay- scale, as was being claimed, to the respondent-claimant or not. Secondly, whether any other similarly situated person such as Smt. Anita Srivastava had been actually granted the said benefit. Without satisfying itself on the aforesaid counts it has mechanically allowed the claim petition of the respondent no. 1, which is unsustainable.

8. On being confronted Shri P.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that all these documents were before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal is presumed to have seen the same and had passed a correct judgment. However, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Government Orders which have now been brought on record by the petitioner were not placed by the respondent-claimant before the Tribunal resulting in the error.

9. As, none of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner could be satisfactorily explained or rebutted and as, we are of the considered opinion that for the facts and reasons noticed above the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned judgment, we, accordingly, quash impugned judgment and dismiss the claim petition for the reasons aforesaid.

10. The writ petition is allowed. . (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2025 R.K.P. RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench