# Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 543
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-10
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13992 of 2019
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vinod-chandra-jain-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52381
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Notional promotion -
Entitlement - Earlier the Division Bench
directed the respondents to grant benefit
of
notional
promotion
to
the
writ
petitioners to the post of Additional
Director - Effect - Held, reasons given in
the impugned order for rejecting the case
of the petitioners for grant of notional
promotion are arbitrary in the face of
observations made by Division Benches -
Further held, the consequential benefits of
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pension, gratuity & ors.retiral dues shall
also be available to the petitioners - In
the event, the payment is delayed beyond
three months, the same shall carry 6%
simple interest from the date of this
judgment. (Para 28, 29 and 33)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
543
Chairman passed in appeal preferred by
him under the Regulations. The power
conferred upon the Registrar under Section
128 of the Act, i.e., the parent legislation is
not diluted in any manner by the
regulations framed by the Institutional
Board which are in the nature of
subordinate legislation as reference may
also be had to the definition of ''Officer'' as
contained in Section 20 of the Cooperative
Societies Act which categorically refers to
the Chairman as an officer of the
Cooperative
Societies.
Therefore,
the
application filed by the petitioner under
Section 128 of the Act 1965 was legally
maintainable. The order of Additional
Registrar
dated
12.6.2007
holding
otherwise is legally not justified."

7. In such above view of the matter,
therefore, I do not see any justification to
take a different view from what has already
been taken by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in the aforesaid case. Hence the
preliminary
objection
raised
by
Sri
Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent is upheld.

8. The law is well settled that no one
can be left remediless. The highest
authority under an enactment if is vested
with the supervisory and superintending
power or residuary power, which is not
traceable in any other provision of the Act
then such power should be permitted to be
exercised to look into and decide the matter
as a final authority on facts and I find it to
be necessary for arresting any miscarriage
of justice.

9. Hence, I decline to entertain the
petition at this stage. However, it is left
open for the petitioner to prefer an
appeal/representation before the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies taking aid to Section
128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965
and
in
the
event
any
such
representation/appeal is filed within a
period of four weeks from today, the same
shall be dealt with and disposed of by
Registrar, Cooperative Societies within a
further period of two months.

10. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, this petition stands disposed
of.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 543
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 13992 of 2019
with
Writ A No. 29588 of 2019
With
Writ A No. 24592 of 2020

Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Hari Prasad Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Notional promotion -
Entitlement - Earlier the Division Bench
directed the respondents to grant benefit
of
notional
promotion
to
the
writ
petitioners to the post of Additional
Director - Effect - Held, reasons given in
the impugned order for rejecting the case
of the petitioners for grant of notional
promotion are arbitrary in the face of
observations made by Division Benches -
Further held, the consequential benefits of
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pension, gratuity & ors.retiral dues shall
also be available to the petitioners - In
the event, the payment is delayed beyond
three months, the same shall carry 6%
simple interest from the date of this
judgment. (Para 28, 29 and 33)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Chandra Prakash & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2002 (10) SCC 710

2. Service Bench No. 2029 of 2015; Dr.
Jagannath Prasad Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 01.07.2021

3. Writ petition No. 2811 of 2004; Dr. Rajendra
& ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
10.11.2005

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

01. Heard Sri Hari Prasad Shukla and
Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Shiv Ganesh Singh,
learned Additional CSC for respondent -
State.

02. This bunch of writ petitions is
being decided by means of a common
judgment and order as the controversy
involved in the writ petitions is similar in
nature treating Writ-A No.13992 of 2019 to
be leading writ petition and the order
passed thereon shall be equally applicable
to all the connected matters.

03. The controversy involved in the
present bunch of writ petitions arises due to
denial of extension benefit granted by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ
Petition No.43 of 1998; Dr. Chandra
Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 04.12.2002, reported in
2002 (10) SCC 710, the petitioners
preferred
present
writ
petitions
with
following prayer:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 20.05.2005 upto
extent of denial of promotion on higher
post and denial of payment of arrears of
salary and order dated 01.11.2018, whereby
the respondents said that all the benefits
have been given to the petitioners.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to examine the case of the
petitioners to grant the benefit of judgment
and order passed by this Hon'ble Court and
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect
of grant of promotion and position,
selection grade and arrears of salary from
the date of notional promotion as the same
has been given by the respondents to other
similarly situated persons.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to promote and provide the
position
with
all
incidental
and
consequential benefits including selection
grade of Rs.4500-5700 to the petitioners as
per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.

iv) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to fix and revise the
pension of the petitioners as per rules and
pay the arrears of salary as well as arrears
of pension with interest at market rate.

v) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to provide the selection
grade for the post of Joint Director in the
pay
scale
of
Rs.4500-5700
as
per
Government Order dated 29.12.1997, as the
same benefits have been given to other
similarly situated persons.
9 All. Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
545

vi) Any other writ, order or
direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper and to award the cost of the
petition to the petitioners.

04. There was a dispute in respect of
determination of seniority and extension of
benefit of promotion and position between
the regularly
selected and appointed
medical officers and medical officers
appointed by the Departmental Selection
Committee (DSC) on adhoc basis finally
deciding the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash
(Supra) on 04.12.2002, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held as under:

"We accordingly allow the writ
petitions and declare that (1) the writ
petitioners are not within the purview of
Rules of 1979, (2) the State Government
will fix the seniority of all doctors in PMHS
Cadre from the date of orders of their
initial appointment within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order and give
all
consequential
benefits
including
promotions and positions on the basis of
such seniority list and, (3) those doctors,
who were selected in year 1972 and 197778-79 by Principal Secretary and who were
not issued orders of appointment and
joined the service on the basis of Tandon's
case, will be treated as having been
appointed on the date they actually joined
the service and their seniority will be
counted from that date."

05. In compliance of judgment and
order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
dated 04.12.2002, on 05.06.2003 the
respondents circulated the seniority list of
medical officers of U.P. Medical and
Health Department and in the seniority list,
name of petitioners finds place.

06. On the basis of seniority list, by
adopting the procedure of pick and choose,
several medical excluding the petitioners
got promoted to the post of Joint Director,
Additional Director, Director and Director
General.

07. In violation of order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, instead of extending the
benefits of promotion and position to all on
the basis of seniority list, vide impugned
order dated 20.05.2005, the respondents
notionally promoted the medical officers
from senior grade to Joint Director grade in
the pay scale applicable on the date and
denied to pay the arrears of salary ignoring
the fact that on the basis of seniority, they
have already promoted several medical
officers upto the post of Director General &
Director and paid them arrears of salary.

08. The petitioners have been
promoted on the post of Joint Director
w.e.f. 10.05.1990, thus, as per Government
Order dated 29.12.1997 and 31.07.2008,
they are entitled for selection grade pay
scale of Rs.4500-5700 w.e.f. 10.05.1990
but respondents are not extending the
benefits to them.

09. Being aggrieved with the
discriminatory action of the respondents,
several writ petitions have been filed by
medical officers of U.P. Medical and
Health
Department.
In
Writ
Petition
No.1543 (S/B) of 2004 vide judgment and
order dated 18.09.2007, this Court has been
pleased to dispose of the writ petition
directing the respondent No.1 to grant all
consequential benefits including notional
promotion etc to the petitioners within two
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of the order.
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Against judgment and order dated
18.09.2007; Writ Petition No.1543 (S/B) of
2004; Dr. Raghubeer Prasad Dixit and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others, the
State of U.P. preferred Review Petition
NO.100 of 2008; State of U.P. and others
Vs. Dr. Raghubeer Prasad Dixit and others,
which was dismissed by this Court on
31.07.2008.

11. Due to discretionary action of the
State Government, several medical officers
of U.P. Medical and Health Department
preferred writ petitions before this Court at
Lucknow and Allahabad. The writ petitions
filed at Lucknow Bench have been allowed
but Writ-A No.7742 of 2004; Dr. Chandra
Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others, filed at Allahabad was dismissed on
10.11.2005.

12. Being aggrieved with the
judgments of this Court, State Government
preferred SLP (Civil), which was converted
as Civil Appeal Nos.3041, 3043, 3044,
3045, 3046 of 2010 and Dr. Chandra
Prakash filed SLP (Civil), which has been
converted as Civil Appeal NO.3042 of
2010. All the civil appeals were connected
on 05.09.2011 and Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India has held as under:

"On the facts and circumstances,
particularly having regard to the fact that
most of the contesting respondents are
retired, we do not propose to stay the
impugned order of the High Court. If
appellants succeeds ultimately, it will be
entitled to recover the amount paid in
pursuance of the order of the High Court."

13. Subsequently, all the civil appeals
were listed on 24.07.2024 and the civil
appeal filed by the State of U.P. has been
dismissed while the civil appeal NO.3042
of 2010; Dr. Chandra Prakash and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others was allowed
with following order:

"In view of the observation made
above, we have no option but to set aside
the part of the impugned order dated 10th
November, 2005 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP
7742/2004, whereby High Court refuse to
grant arrear of salary in favour of the
appellant.

The respondents are directed to
pay the appellant the consequential benefits
of arrears of pay pursuant to the said order
in view of the notional promotion granted
in favour of the appellant.

Impugned order passed by the
High Court stands modified to the extent
above.

The appeal is allowed with
direction to the State to pay arrears of
salary if it not yet paid within three months.
On failure, the State of U.P. will be liable
to pay interest @6% from the date of
judgment of this Court."

14. In Compliance of judgment and
order dated 24.07.2014 vide office order
dated 21.10.2015, respondents extended all
the benefits including arrears of salary with
interest to Dr. Chandra Prakash and others.

15. Due to denial of benefit of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, Dr. Virendra Singh Pachahara filed
Writ Petition No.1461 (S/B) of 2009 and
vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2013,
this Court has observed as under:

"In view of above, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and is
hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of
certiorari is issued quashing the impugned
order dated 12.05.2009 commanding the
9 All. Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
547
State Government to provide promotion
and pay scale and promotional avenues
under the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Dr. Chandra
Prakash (Supra) expeditiously, say within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of the order."

16. In compliance of the order dated
15.07.2013, vide office memo dated
18.02.2014
respondents
extended
the
benefits including pay scale of Rs.45005700 with arrears subject to outcome of
Civil Appeal No.3041 of 2010. In the said
order, it has been said that the case of
Virendra Singh Pachahara is same as of
case of Dr. Raghubeer Prasad Dixit, even
then respondents are not extending the
benefits. The civil appeal was dismissed on
24.07.2014.

17. Due to discriminatory action of
respondents, Dr. Ramji Pandey preferred
Writ-A No.3334 of 2009, which was
allowed by this Court on 31.08.2017 with
following observation:

"Consequently, the writ petition is
allowed. A direction is issued to the
respondents to grant notional benefits of
promotion to the petitioner as Additional
Director as Director as and when it falls
due in accordance with the rules as notified
on 11th August, 2004 and the pay scale
shall be re-fixed, which shall be complied
with by making payment of arrears of
salary
of
such
re-calculation
as
expeditiously as possible preferably within
three
months
from
today.
The
consequential benefits of pension, gratuity
and other retiral dues shall also be
available to the petitioner to that effect. In
the event, the payment is delayed beyond
three months, the same shall carry 6%
simple interest from the date of judgment to
the date of payment."

18. Against the judgment and order
dated
31.08.2017
passed
in
Writ-A
No.3334 of 2009, State of U.P. preferred
SLP with Diary No.33951 of 2010 before
the Apex COurt and in the said SLP no
order for stay has been granted and the SLP
is pending.

19. Vide order dated 05.05.2015, the
respondents rejected the claim of Dr. J.P.
Gupta (Jagannath Prasad Gupta), who was
petitioner of Writ Petition No.04 (S/B) of
2004, preferred writ petition No.2229 (S/B)
of 2015, wherein vide judgment and order
dated 01.07.2021, this Court allowed the
writ petition with following observation:

"16. This writ petition is allowed
in the same terms as the decision by this
Court on 31.08.2017 in Writ-A No.3334 of
2009 (Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U.P.).

17. Let appropriate order be
passed by opposite party No.2 making them
subject to decision in SLP with Diary
No.33951 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Ji
Pandey).

18. A direction is issued to the
respondents to grant notional benefits of
promotion to the petitioner as Additional
Director and Director as and when it falls
due in accordance with the Rules as
notified on 11th August, 2004 and the pay
shall be re-fixed and payment of arrears of
salary on such re-calculation shall be made
as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within three months from today. The
consequential benefits of pension, gratuity
and other retiral dues shall also be
available to the petitioner. In the event the
payment is delayed beyond three months,
the same shall carry 6% simple interest
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the date of this judgment to the date of
payment."

20.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that there is no iota of
difference between the petitioner and other
such medical officers to whom the benefit
has been extended by the respondents.

21. He further submitted that the
effect of the judgment dated 04.12.2002
passed in the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash
;(2002) 10 SCC 710 is rem in nature while
the judgment passed in Writ-A No.3334 of
2009; Ramji Pandey (Supra), against which
the State of U.P. has preferred SLP
No.33951 of 2010 is personam in nature.

22. He next submitted that since
denial to extend the benefit of promotion,
position and pay scale with arrears and
revision of pension at par with junior is
discriminatory, illegal and arbitrary, thus,
the impugned order dated 20.05.2005 and
01.11.2018 annexed as Annexure No.1 to
the writ petition are liable to be quashed
and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

23. On the other hand, learned
Additional CSC appearing for respondent -
State opposed the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that the seniority list was
prepared
in
compliance
of
Hon'ble
Supreme Court's order in Dr. Chandra
Prakash case on 05.06.2003. On the basis
of seniority, notional promotion was
granted on senior grade. There was no basis
for granting notional promotion to the post
higher than that of Joint Director i.e.
Additional Director and Director Grade, as
there were selection posts. He submitted
that consequential order for revision of
pension was also issued thereafter. The
representation of the petitioners was
disposed of and as such, the order
impugned is just and valid.

24. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.

25.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
have
submitted
written
submissions, wherein charts have been
prepared reflecting the service details of the
date from which the petitioners were
granted notional promotion, which is being
extracted below:

Writ-A No.13990 of 2019:

S
.
N
o
.
Nam
e of
Petit
ioner
s

Sou
rce
of
Ap
poi
nt -
me
nt
Date
of
appoi
nt-
ment
/
Joini
ng
Sen
iorit
y
No.

Date
of
Noti
onal
Pro
moti
on

Date
of
Retir
eme
nt
Rem
ark

1
.
Dr.
Vino
d
Cha
ndra
Jain
DS
C
28.01
/1973
/
01.03
.1973
159
9
10.0
5.19
90
30.0
4.20
05
Juni
ors
were
pro
mote
d
upto
the
post
of
Addl
.
Dire
ctor
with
pay
scale
of
Rs.4
5005700
with
arrea
rs of
salar
y
and
revis
ion
pens
ion
9 All. Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
549
but
the
petit
ione
rs
are
bein
g
depr
ived
of.
2
.
Dr.
Sha
msh
er
Sing
h
DS
C
14.06
.1973
/
20.06
.1973
179
6
10.0
5.19
90
31.0
8.20
07
Do
3
.
Dr.
Ram
esh
Cha
ndra
Sriv
astav
a
DS
C
14.11
.1973
/
01.12
.1973
206
1
10.0
5.19
90
31.0
7.20
07
Do
4
.
Dr.
Ana
nd
Kum
ar
Bhar
dwaj
DS
C
11.02
.1974
/
14.02
.1974
230
6
10.0
5.19
90
30.0
6.20
08
Do

Writ-A No.29588 of 2019:

Petit
ioner
No.

S.N
o. in
Repr
e
sent
atio
n
Nam
e of
Petiti
oner

Senio
rity
No.
in
Senio
rity
List
dated
05.06
.2003

Date
on
whic
h
notio
nal
prom
otion
grant
ed in
Senio
r
Grade
Date
on
whic
h
Notio
nal
Porm
otion
is
grant
ed on
the
post
of
Joint
Direc
tor
Date
of
order
granti
ng
prom
otion

2
24
Dr.
Jagdi
sh
Kum
ar
Gupt
a
839
16.3.
1979
10.3.
1979
02.2.
2005
3
2
Dr.
1221
13.3.
01.1.
20.5.
Irsha
d Ali
1973
1986
2005
4.
23
Dr.
Govi
nd
Moh
an
Garg
1263
10.3.
1979
01.1.
1986
02.2.
2005
5
1
Dr.
Durg
a
Shan
kar
Shuk
la
1512
04.1.
1982
10.05
.1990
20.05
.2005
6
22
Dr.
Rajes
h
Kum
ar
Mish
ra
1589
.
27.5.
1982
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
7
3
Dr.
Obai
der
Reh
man
1956
27.5.
1982
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
8
4
Dr.
Subh
ash
Chan
dra
Guru
deo
2058
27.5.
1982
.10.5.
190
20.5.
2005
9
6
Dr.
Raje
ndra
Kum
ar
Sriva
stava
2191
27.5.
1982
.10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
1
7
Dr.
F.I.
Zube
ri
2250
27.5.
1982
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
10
8
Dr.
Bal
Krish
na
Jaju
2398
09.12
.1982
10.05
.1990
20.05
.2005
11
9
Dr.
Ram
esh
Chan
dra
Chad
ha
2503
09.12
.1982

10.05
.1990

20.05
.2005

12
21
Dr.
Vish
esh
Kum
2525
29.05
.1985
27.04
.1995
20.05
.2005
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ar
Virm
ani
13
12
Dr.
Mirz
a
Mans
sor
Murt
aza
2852
15.2.
1985
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
14
13
Dr.
Veer
endra
Prata
p
Sing
h
2961
15.2.
1985
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
15
14
Dr.
Rata
n
Kum
ar
2974
15.2.
1985
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
16
15
Dr.
Mad
huka
r
Nath
Kapo
or
3117
24.5.
1985
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
17
16
Dr.
Veer
endra
Prata
p
Sing
h
3125
24.5.
1985
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
18
5
Dr.
Ram
Kum
ar
Saxe
na
3207
24.5.
1985
10.5.
1990
20.5.
2005
19
18
Dr.
Vijay
Pal
Sing
h
3243
29.5.
1985
27.4.
1995
20.05
.2005
21
19
Dr.
Anil
Kum
ar
3282
24.5.
1985
10.9.
1990
20.05
.2005
read
with
10.12
.2010

Chart 'B'

Petiti
oner
No.
S.N
o. in
Repr
e
sent
Nam
e of
Petiti
oner

Senio
rity
No.
in
Senio
Date
on
whic
h
notio
Date
on
whic
h
Notio
Date
of
order
granti
ng
atio
n
rity
List
dated
05.06
.2003

nal
prom
otion
grant
ed in
Senio
r
Grade
nal
Porm
otion
is
grant
ed on
the
post
of
Joint
Direc
tor
prom
otion

22
Sepa
rate
Dr.
Dr.
P.K
Bhat
nagar
2366
09.12
.1982
10.05
.1990
:
20.05
.2005

Writ-A No.24592 of 2020

Sr.
No
.
Name
of
Petiti
oners

Sourc
e
of
Appoi
nt
-
ment

Date
of
appoi
nt-
ment
/
Joinin
g

Se
nio
rity
No.
Date of
Notional
Promoti
on
on
the post
of Joint
Director
Dat
e
of
Ret
ire
me
nt
Re
ma
rk

1.
Dr.
Mahe
sh
Kuma
r
Gupta
DSC
31.07.
1971
/
30.08.
1971
11
78
01.01.19
86
30.
06.
20
06
Jun
ior
s
we
re
pro
mo
ted
upt
o
the
pos
t of
Dir
ect
or
Ge
ner
al
wit
h
sel
ecti
on
gra
de
of
Rs.
45
0057
00
2.
Dr.
Panch
am
Singh
DSC
14.08.
1972
/
22.08.
1972
13
81
01.01.19
86
31.
12.
20
03
DO
9 All. Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
551
3.
Dr.
Laksh
man
Jee
Kesar
i
DSC
14.08.
1972
/
18.08.
1972
13
86
10.05.19
90
31.
01.
20
06
Do

4.

Dr.
Ram
Prata
p
Singh
Chau
han
DSC
28.10.
1972
/
04.11.
1972
14
94
10.05.19
90

31.
10.
20
05
Do
5.

Dr.
Sabha
jeet
Singh
DSC
28.10.
1972
/
03.11.
1972
15
03
10.05.19
90
31.
01.
20
08
Do
6.
Dr.
Kewa
la
Nand
Patani
DSC
07.09.
1973
/
10.09.
1973
19
35
10.05.19
90

31.
07.
20
07

Jun
ior
s
pro
mo
ted
upt
o
the
pos
t of
Dir
ect
or
wit
h
sel
ecti
on
gra
de
of
Rs.
45
0057
00
7.
Dr.
Ram
Shrin
gar
Dube
y
DSC
18.07.
1975
/
22.07.
1975
29
49

10.05.19
90

31.
01.
20
09

Jun
ior
s
pro
mo
ted
upt
o
the
pos
t of
Ad
dl.
Dir
ect
or
wit
h
sel
ecti
on
gra
de
of
Rs.
45
0057
00

26. This Court having considered the
two judgments passed by Division Benches
in the case of Gulab Chandra and Dr. Ramji
Pandey, the arguments as raised by learned
counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of
judgment of Single Bench of this Court in
the case of Dr. Jagannath Prasad Gupta
Vs. State of U.P. and others; Service
Bench No.2029 of 2015 order dated
01.07.2021, found that the same reason for
rejecting the case of the petitioners have
been mentioned in the impugned order
dated 05.08.2018, as have been mentioned
in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents. The impugned order also
considers the case of Dr. Sumati Sheel
Sharma and mentions that Dr. Sumati Sheel
Sharma was placed at the serial No.1099 of
the seniority list and 21 other doctors, who
were senior to her including those who had
retired from service or died, had been given
notional promotion as Additional Director
w.e.f.
21.06.2009
and
the
notional
promotion on the post of Director in the
pay scale of Rs.5900-6300 w.e.f. the date
that Dr. Sumati SHeel Sharma was given
such promotion. This fact mentioned in the
order dated 05.05.2015, as also the fact that
petitioners were placed at serial numbers
indicated in the chart narrated above of the
seniority list, has convinced the Court that
the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

27. Cases of the petitioners have been
rejected only on the ground that Dr. Sumati
Sheel Sharma had been given promotion on
21.06.1990 and 22.05.1996 on the basis of
earlier seniority list and the petitioner were
at that time junior to Dr. Sumati Sheel
Sharma, therefore, they cannot claim the
same benefit. Additionally, a reference has
been made of pension, re-fixation having
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been done by the Government Order dated
30.12.2005 and 13.06.2006 and of Writ
petition No.2811 of 2004 (Dr. Rajendra and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others) having
been decided by Hihg Court on 10.11.2005
with the observation that only notional
promotion can be given and pension
refixation can be done alongwith other
retiral benefits but arrears of salary cannot
be given on the principle of "No work No
pay."

28. The reasons given in the
impugned order for rejecting the case of the
petitioners for grant of notional promotion
are arbitrary in the face of observations
made by Division
Benches of this Court in the case of Gulab
Chandra and Dr. Ramji Pandey (Supra).

29. The Division Benches of this
Court in the aforesaid two judgments have
allowed the writ petitions with the direction
to the respondents to grant benefit of
notional promotion to the writ petitioners to
the post of Additional Director and
Director as and when it fell due in
accordance with rules as notified in August,
2004 and the pay scale was to be refixed
and teh arrears of salary were to be
recalculated and to be paid within three
months from the date of passing of the
order. Consequential benefits of refixation
of pension, gratuity and other post retiral
benefits were also to be made available to
the writ petitioners and if such payment
was delayed beyond three months, the
same was to accrue 6% simple interest
from the date of judgment to the date of
payment.

30. Similar orders have been passed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.3041 of 2010 as have been
mentioned above.

31. In view of the above, these writ
petitions are allowed in same terms as the
decision taken by this Court on 31.08.2017
in Writ-A No.3334 of 2009; Ramji Pandey
Vs. State of U.P.

32. Let appropriate order be passed by
opposite parties making them subject to
decision in S.L.P. with Diary No.33951 of
2018; State of U.P. Vs. Ramji Pandey.

33. A direction is issued to the
respondents to grant notional benefits of
promotion to the petitioners as Additional
Director and Director as and when it falls
due in accordance with rules as notified on
11.08.2004 and the pay shall be refixed and
payment of arrears of salary on such
recalculation
shall
be
made
as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within
three
months
from
today.
The
consequential benefits of pension, gratuity
and other retiral dues shall also be available
to the petitioners. In the event the payment
is delayed beyond three months, the same
shall carry 6% simple interest from the date
of this judgment to the date of payment.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 15654 of 2017

Dinesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner
Km. Vishwa Mohini, Devashish Bhatt,
Rajesh Kumar