Pravin Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Technical Edu. Civil

1. Heard Mr. Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 18.12.2020,

01.09.2021 and 20.01.2022 whereby representation of petitioner for providing benefit of pay protection has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to concerned authority to consider services of petitioner rendered on his erstwhile post of Workshop Instructor at Government Polytechnic, Barabanki and Government Girls Polytechnic, Lucknow from 03.01.2001 till 19.02.2019 has also been sought for grant of benefit of pay protection in light of Government Order dated

11.05.2020 read with Government Orders dated 31.05.2016 and

16.08.2016. Prayer has also been made for a direction to concerned authorities to refix salary of petitioner by grant of benefit of pay protection ever since his appointment as Workshop Superintendent on 20.02.2019. Payment of arrears has also been sought.

3. It has been submitted that earlier on the recommendations of the U.P State Public Service Commission, petitioner was appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor in the Government Polytechnic concerned on 24.09.2001 on probation whereafter his services were confirmed vide order dated 03.10.2003. It is submitted that first and second Assured Career Progression Scheme benefits were also granted to petitioner whereafter he applied for direct recruitment on 2 WRIA No. 2981 of 2022 the post of Workshop Superintendent with the opposite parties themselves. He submits that in pursuance of such application, petitioner was selected under regular selection for the said post and appointed as Workshop Superintendent vide order dated 21.01.2019 and joined on 19.02.2019 after being relieved from the post of Workshop Instructor. It is submitted that the last pay certificate of petitioner issued on the post of Workshop Instructor indicates his basic pay as Rs.60,400/- per month but for the post of Workshop Superintendent, his basic pay has been fixed as Rs.56,100/- per month.

4. Learned counsel has thereafter drawn attention to the Government Order dated 31.05.2016 to submit that in such circumstances, pay protection has been provided but benefit of same has not been granted to petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has thereafter drawn attention to the impugned order to submit that request of petitioner for pay protection has been rejected only on the ground that he was not confirmed on the post of Workshop Instructor. It is submitted that the entire basis of passing of impugned order is erroneous and passed in ignorance of the order dated 03.10.2003 whereby petitioner was confirmed in service.

6. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that although petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor on 03.10.2001 on the recommendations of U.P State Public Service Commission, his services remained as that of an unconfirmed employee and the Government Order dated

31.05.2016 would be applicable only in cases of confirmed employees having a lien on their erstwhile post.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's representation for pay protection has been rejected primarily on the ground that he was unconfirmed and did not have any lien on the post of Workshop Instructor. 3 WRIA No. 2981 of 2022

8. However, it is evident from a perusal of order dated 11.02.2020 that petitioner has been confirmed on the post of Workshop Instructor with retrospective effect from 03.10.2003. It is relevant apparently as on the date of passing of the order dated 11.02.2020, petitioner was not in fact in service as a Workshop Instructor since he had already been appointed as Workshop Superintendent. Nevertheless, since the aforesaid order has been passed granting retrospective confirmation to petitioner and the same admittedly has not been withdrawn or rescinded by any subsequent order, petitioner would be deemed to be confirmed on the post of Workshop Instructor with retrospective effect from 03.10.2003.

9. In such circumstances, petitioner's case evidently would come within purview of the Government Order dated 31.05.2016 which specifically in paragraph 2 provides that in such cases where a Government Employee is appointed on a post by fresh recruitment then his pay would be protected with regard to the earlier post in case the earlier post carries a pay scale which is higher than that available on the new post. Example with regard to paragraph 2(a) has also been indicated in the Government Order.

10. The aforesaid aspect has been clearly indicated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition and has not been denied by the opposite parties in paragraph 12 thereof.

11. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned orders has been passed without noticing the aspect of petitioner's subsequent confirmation in service on 11.02.2020 with retrospective effect.

12. In such circumstances, the reasoning indicated in the impugned order is clearly erroneous and against material on record. The impugned orders dated 18.12.2020, 01.09.2021 and 25.04.2022 therefore are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to provide pay protection to petitioner of the amount of Rs.60,400/- as per the last pay certificate issued by the department brought on record as Annexure 7 to the writ 4 WRIA No. 2981 of 2022 petition, particularly since the new post of Workshop Superintendent indicates the basic pay of Rs.56,100/- as per the order brought on record as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition.

13. Petitioner shall also be entitled to all subsequent consequential benefits including pay revision and arrears of salary with regard to basic pay with effect from the date of appointment as Workshop Superintendent on 20.02.2019.

14. Order with regard to aforesaid shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

15. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 16, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 18.12.2020,

01.09.2021 and 20.01.2022 whereby representation of petitioner for providing benefit of pay protection has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to concerned authority to consider services of petitioner rendered on his erstwhile post of Workshop Instructor at Government Polytechnic, Barabanki and Government Girls Polytechnic, Lucknow from 03.01.2001 till 19.02.2019 has also been sought for grant of benefit of pay protection in light of Government Order dated

11.05.2020 read with Government Orders dated 31.05.2016 and

16.08.2016. Prayer has also been made for a direction to concerned authorities to refix salary of petitioner by grant of benefit of pay protection ever since his appointment as Workshop Superintendent on 20.02.2019. Payment of arrears has also been sought.

3. It has been submitted that earlier on the recommendations of the U.P State Public Service Commission, petitioner was appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor in the Government Polytechnic concerned on 24.09.2001 on probation whereafter his services were confirmed vide order dated 03.10.2003. It is submitted that first and second Assured Career Progression Scheme benefits were also granted to petitioner whereafter he applied for direct recruitment on 2 WRIA No. 2981 of 2022 the post of Workshop Superintendent with the opposite parties themselves. He submits that in pursuance of such application, petitioner was selected under regular selection for the said post and appointed as Workshop Superintendent vide order dated 21.01.2019 and joined on 19.02.2019 after being relieved from the post of Workshop Instructor. It is submitted that the last pay certificate of petitioner issued on the post of Workshop Instructor indicates his basic pay as Rs.60,400/- per month but for the post of Workshop Superintendent, his basic pay has been fixed as Rs.56,100/- per month.

4. Learned counsel has thereafter drawn attention to the Government Order dated 31.05.2016 to submit that in such circumstances, pay protection has been provided but benefit of same has not been granted to petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has thereafter drawn attention to the impugned order to submit that request of petitioner for pay protection has been rejected only on the ground that he was not confirmed on the post of Workshop Instructor. It is submitted that the entire basis of passing of impugned order is erroneous and passed in ignorance of the order dated 03.10.2003 whereby petitioner was confirmed in service.

6. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that although petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor on 03.10.2001 on the recommendations of U.P State Public Service Commission, his services remained as that of an unconfirmed employee and the Government Order dated

31.05.2016 would be applicable only in cases of confirmed employees having a lien on their erstwhile post.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's representation for pay protection has been rejected primarily on the ground that he was unconfirmed and did not have any lien on the post of Workshop Instructor. 3 WRIA No. 2981 of 2022

8. However, it is evident from a perusal of order dated 11.02.2020 that petitioner has been confirmed on the post of Workshop Instructor with retrospective effect from 03.10.2003. It is relevant apparently as on the date of passing of the order dated 11.02.2020, petitioner was not in fact in service as a Workshop Instructor since he had already been appointed as Workshop Superintendent. Nevertheless, since the aforesaid order has been passed granting retrospective confirmation to petitioner and the same admittedly has not been withdrawn or rescinded by any subsequent order, petitioner would be deemed to be confirmed on the post of Workshop Instructor with retrospective effect from 03.10.2003.

9. In such circumstances, petitioner's case evidently would come within purview of the Government Order dated 31.05.2016 which specifically in paragraph 2 provides that in such cases where a Government Employee is appointed on a post by fresh recruitment then his pay would be protected with regard to the earlier post in case the earlier post carries a pay scale which is higher than that available on the new post. Example with regard to paragraph 2(a) has also been indicated in the Government Order.

10. The aforesaid aspect has been clearly indicated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition and has not been denied by the opposite parties in paragraph 12 thereof.

11. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned orders has been passed without noticing the aspect of petitioner's subsequent confirmation in service on 11.02.2020 with retrospective effect.

12. In such circumstances, the reasoning indicated in the impugned order is clearly erroneous and against material on record. The impugned orders dated 18.12.2020, 01.09.2021 and 25.04.2022 therefore are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to provide pay protection to petitioner of the amount of Rs.60,400/- as per the last pay certificate issued by the department brought on record as Annexure 7 to the writ 4 WRIA No. 2981 of 2022 petition, particularly since the new post of Workshop Superintendent indicates the basic pay of Rs.56,100/- as per the order brought on record as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition.

13. Petitioner shall also be entitled to all subsequent consequential benefits including pay revision and arrears of salary with regard to basic pay with effect from the date of appointment as Workshop Superintendent on 20.02.2019.

14. Order with regard to aforesaid shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

15. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 16, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench