# Iqbal Ahmad v. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 665
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 140 of 1996
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iqbal-ahmad-v-d-i-o-s-allahabad-and-another-39939
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Revision of Pay Scale - post of staff
instructor- appointment under Provincial
Kshiksha Dal- created by G.O. dated
12.12.64-appointed
on
14.1.64-
Pay
scale
of
other
state
government
employees revised w.e.f. 1979- but the
Government accepted the Revision of
Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.1.86- No justification
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
for discrimination- Held- entitled for
revision of Pay w.e.f. 12.7.79.

Held- Para 8

There is no justification for the State
Government not to revise the pay scale
w.e.f. 12.7.79 when the benefit of the
revised pay scale has been given to all
the State Government employees and
such an action of the State Government
is arbitrary and discriminatory being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and thus cannot be sustained.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Iqbal Ahmad V. D.I.O.S., Allahabad and another
665
since 1982. The entire amount is to be
paid within a period of two months from
today. The future salary of the petitioner
shall also be paid by 7th of succeeding
month.

Sd/- Hon. M.P.Singh, J.

3.2.89"

10. In view of the interim order
passed by this Court, the question
regarding promotion in L.T. grade has
thus become redundant.

11. It is submitted that during the
pendency of the writ petition, one A.H.
Siddiqui, a permanent Lecturer, retired on
30.6.1995 again causing vacancy on
1.7.1995 and further that the Committee
of Management by resolution dated
15.7.95 has recommended the name of the
petitioner for promotion in Lecturer
grade.
The
Committee
has
also
submitted/forwarded
all
the
relevant
papers to the D.I.O.S. Allahabad for
approval of his appointment.

12. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of D.I.O.S. Allahabad, in
which it has been stated that there is no
doubt that the Management has power to
promote the petitioner which does not
have any concern with the D.I.O.S. There
is no denial in the counter affidavit that
the post of Lecturer is to be filled only by
way of promotion and the petitioner is
only a qualified teacher to be promoted in
Lecturer grade.

13. However, respondent no. 1, the
District Inspector of Schools did not pass
any order on the papers for approval for
promotion of the petitioner in Lecturer
grade. He, on the other hand, asked the
Management that since the matter for
promotion is pending in the writ petition,
the orders ought not to have been passed.

14. In view of the facts stated above,
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The District Inspector of Schools is
directed to pass appropriate orders on the
papers in respect of the petitioner sent to
him for approval of the promotion of the
petitioner in pursuance of the resolution
of the Committee of Management dated
15.7.95 recommending the promotion of
the petitioner in Lecturer grade, within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 140 of 1996

Ram Kinkar Tripathi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri H.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sabhajeet Yadav
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Revision of Pay Scale - post of staff
instructor- appointment under Provincial
Kshiksha Dal- created by G.O. dated
12.12.64-appointed
on
14.1.64-
Pay
scale
of
other
state
government
employees revised w.e.f. 1979- but the
Government accepted the Revision of
Pay Scale w.e.f. 1.1.86- No justification
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
for discrimination- Held- entitled for
revision of Pay w.e.f. 12.7.79.

Held- Para 8

There is no justification for the State
Government not to revise the pay scale
w.e.f. 12.7.79 when the benefit of the
revised pay scale has been given to all
the State Government employees and
such an action of the State Government
is arbitrary and discriminatory being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and thus cannot be sustained.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Shri Ram Kinkar Tripathi, the
appellant writ petitioner, has filed the
present
special
Appeal
against
the
judgment and order dated 5.1.1996,
passed by the learned single Judge,
whereby the writ petition filed by him,
has
been
partly
allowed
with
the
following directions:-

"In that view of the matter, the claim
of the petitioner succeeds to the extent
that he is entitled to get the revised pay
with effect from 1.1.1986. No other
question having been urged in this writ
petition, this writ petition is allowed only
with the direction that the respondents are
directed to make payment of all arrears to
the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986.
Such arrears are to be paid within a period
of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order."

2. We have heard Shri H.N. Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant writ
petitioner and Shri Sabhajeet Yadav
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.

3. Shri H.N. Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant writ petitioner submitted
that the appellant writ petitioner was
initially appointed as Staff Instructor
under the Provincial Shiksha Dal on
24.2.1964. Provincial Shiksha Dal was
amalgamated
with
the
Education
Department and the services of the
appellant writ petitioner was placed under
the control of Director of Education
(Basic). According to him the Provincial
Shiksha Dal was abolished in the year
1972 and all the staff were absorbed with
the department of Basic Education. The
appellant writ petitioner was getting the
pay scale of Rs.175-250 in the year 1972.
The pay scale of State Government
employees was revised in the year 1979
and again w.e.f. 1st January, 1986.
According to the counsel due to some
omission the pay scale of Staff Instructor
was not revised, whereupon the appellant
writ petitioner approached this court by
filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15187
of 1985 which was disposed by this court
vide judgment and order dated 28.3.1988
with the direction to the Additional
Director of Education to decide the case
of the petitioner, if possible, within two
months from the date of service of a
certified copy of the judgment upon him.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction
given by this court, the Addl. Director of
Education vide letter dated 19th July,
1989, written to the Joint Secretary,
Education Govt. of U.P. Lucknow stated
that the pay scale of Rs.175-250 in which
the appellant writ petitioner was placed on
1.8.1972 was equivalent to the pay scale
which the drivers were getting and since
the pay scale of the drivers have been
raised on 1st July, 1979 to Rs.330-495 the
same pay scale be given to the appellant
writ petitioner. When a final decision was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ram Kinkar Tripathi V. State of U.P. and others
667
not being taken by the competent
authority, the appellant writ petitioner
filed a Contempt Petition No. 6746 of
1981 against the then Additional Director
of Education (Basic). However, the said
contempt petition was dismissed vide
order dated 1.5.1991.

5. The petitioner again approached
this court by filing Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 26287 of 1991 for issue of a
writ of mandamus commanding the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the State of
U.P. through the Education Secretary U.P.
Lucknow and the Director of Education
(Basic) Lucknow to revise pay scale of
the
appellant
writ
petitioner
w.e.f.
1.7.1979 and to pay arrears of his salary.
The said writ petition has been decided by
the learned Single Judge by the impugned
judgment and order dated 5.1.1996 on the
basis of G.O. dated 4.10.1991 by which
the State Government had granted the
benefits of the revised pay scale to the
appellant writ petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986.

6.

The
learned
counsel
has
submitted that there is no dispute that the
pay scale of all the State Government
Employees had been revised w.e.f.
1.7.1979 and, thus, there is no question of
not giving the benefits of the revised pay
scale to the appellant writ petitioner from
the date. According to him even though
the pay commission had not specifically
recommended the revision of the pay
scale of the Staff Instructor working in the
Basic Education Department, they cannot
be denied the benefits of the revision of
the pay scale in as much as they are
entitled for such revised pay scale which
other persons are getting who were placed
in the same pay scale in other posts of
other department or that department.

7. Shri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned
Standing Counsel, however, submitted
that since the pay scale of the appellant
writ petitioner had not been revised he is
not entitled to get the revised pay scale
w.e.f. 1.7.1979 and in view of the G.O.
dated 4.10.1991 he has rightly been given
the benefit of the revised pay scale w.e.f.
1.1.1986.

8. Admittedly, the appellant writ
petitioner had been appointed on the post
of Staff Instructor in the Provincial
Shiksha Dal and after its amalgamation
with the Basic Education Department he
was getting the pay scale of Rs.175-250.
The pay scales of all the Government
employees have been revised by the State
Government w.e.f. 1.7.1979. By the Govt.
Order dated 4.10.1991 the revision of pay
scale of Staff Instructor was effected
w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or from the date of
creation of the post whichever is later. It
appears that the post of Staff Instructor
was created on 12.12.1964. Even though
the revision of pay scale took place in the
year 1979 and 1986 but the appellant writ
petitioner's pay scale was not revised. He
is entitled for revision of pay scale when
the
pay
scale
of
all
other
State
Government
employees
have
been
revised. The State Government has not
given any reason for fixing the cut off
date for revising the appellants pay scale
w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not earlier when the
revision took place in respect of other
category of the staff. There is no
justification for the State Government not
to revise the pay scale w.e.f. 12.7.1979
when the benefit of the revised pay scale
has
been
given
to
all
the
State
Government employees and such an
action of the State Government is
arbitrary
and
discriminatory
being
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and thus cannot be sustained.

9. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the Special Appeal succeeds
and is allowed. The respondent no. 1 is
directed to fix the pay scale of the
appellant writ petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1979
within 2 months from the date of
communication of this order and pay the
entire arrears of salary which is found due
and payable within one month thereafter.

10. The judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 5.1.1996 is
modified to the extent mentioned above.

However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 15066
of 2000

U.P. Urdu Development Organization and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Government
of
India
through
its
Secretary and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri M.S. Haque
Sri Ravinder Singh
Sri Parwaz Ulum (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava
Sri Subodh Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Official language Act 1951 as
amended
by
Uttar
Pradesh
Official
(Amendment) Act 1989- Section 3 -
Notification
dated
7.10.89-
State
Government notified 7 purposes about
which urdu language be treated as
second official language nor the urdu
comes within the definition of Regional
language- No Mandamus can be issued
for
printing
of
form
money
order,
telegram form. Accounts opening form
withdrawal form and other postal forms
simultaneously in Urdu apart from Hindi
and English.

Held- Para 7 and 9

From reading of the aforesaid paragraph,
it is clear that where the Regional
language is different from Hindi, the
form should be printed in regional
language also. The petitioners have
failed to establish that the Urdu is
regional language of the State of U.P.

Constitution empowers the legislature of
the State of adopt by law any one or
more of the languages for use in the
State to be used for or any of the official
purposes of that State. It is not in
dispute that the Urdu language has been
declared as the second official language
in the State of U.P. for such purpose as
may be notified. By the notification
referred to above, which specifies only
seven purposes for which Urdu language
is to be used. Thus it cannot be said that
for all purposes Urdu language has been
declared as second official language or is
to be treated as regional language in the
State of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by U.P. Urdu Development Organization
through its Hony. General Secretary Dr.
Parwaj Ulum, and Dr. Parwaz Ulum in his
individual capacity under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking the
following reliefs:-