# Krishna Nand Barnwal v. Union of India & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.52687 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Ashok Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-nand-barnwal-v-union-of-india-others-42230
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Benefits of Assured Carrier Advance
Scheme-denial
on
ground
petitioner
being
appointed
as
valveman
was
granted up-gradation on post of "Pipe
Fitter"-while the Feeder as well as
Promotional Post remained same-held
1 All] Krishna Nand Barnwal V. Union of India and others
511
entitled for promotional pay 5000-8000
w.e.f. 01.01.1996

Held: Para 9

From the clarification issued by the
Government of India also, it is evident
that if the feeder and the promotional
posts are in the same pay scale the
benefits under the ACP Scheme has to be
allowed ignoring the promotion.
Case law discussed:
(1994) 5 SCC 392; 1973 (2) F.L.R. 398; AIR
2005 (SC) 3353

## Text

510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

34. Considering the matter in all pros
and cons, I am of the view that reasoning
given by the Ombudsman cannot be
justified by any standard. LIC policy
excludes death due to limited causes
mentioned in Exclusion Clause under para
10(b) and, therefore, it is totally irrelevant
to find out the background of the deceased.
Further, even in case where there is a
criminal background of the assured, it
would be difficult to hold that his murder
was not accidental unless he has taken up
the quarrel and that the immediate cause of
injury was deliberate and willful act of the
insured himself.

35. For the reasons aforesaid, the
decision for repudiating the claim vide
letter dated 28.12.2007 by the Senior
Divisional
Manager,
Life
Insurance
Corporation, with regard to Double
Accident Claim benefit and the decision of
the Zonal Manager upholding the order
passed by the Senior Divisional Manager
as well as the award dated 30.6.2008,
which confirms the above orders in
denying the accrued bonus and the findings
recorded therein, are hereby quashed. The
Insurance Company shall disburse the
amount accrued towards the Double
Accident Claim benefit including bonus
and also pay an interest at the rate of 8%
per annum on the said amount from the
date the same has fallen due under Policy
Nos. 3116783632 and 312042657, within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt a certified copy of this order.

36. I pain to note that petitioner's son
died due to untoward incident and she is
running from pillar to post since 2008 for
her legitimate claim/right but the Insurance
Company, on one pretext or other, is
dragging the petitioner from one litigation
to
other
litigation,
therefore,
it
is
appropriate and just to impose cost upon
the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

37. The writ petition is allowed with
costs, which is quantified to Rs.25,000/-.
The Life Insurance Corporation of India
shall pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- within a
month from today before the Registry of
this Court. On receipt of the said cost,
Registry is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to
the petitioner and balance of the amount
i.e. Rs.10,000/- shall be remitted to the
account of Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH, J.

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.52687 of 2008

Krishna Nand Barnwal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Srivastava
Sri S.D. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.P. Mishra
Sri Manoj Kumar
Sri Praveen Kumar Jaiswal (S.C.)
A.S.G.I.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Benefits of Assured Carrier Advance
Scheme-denial
on
ground
petitioner
being
appointed
as
valveman
was
granted up-gradation on post of "Pipe
Fitter"-while the Feeder as well as
Promotional Post remained same-held
1 All] Krishna Nand Barnwal V. Union of India and others
511
entitled for promotional pay 5000-8000
w.e.f. 01.01.1996

Held: Para 9

From the clarification issued by the
Government of India also, it is evident
that if the feeder and the promotional
posts are in the same pay scale the
benefits under the ACP Scheme has to be
allowed ignoring the promotion.
Case law discussed:
(1994) 5 SCC 392; 1973 (2) F.L.R. 398; AIR
2005 (SC) 3353

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

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

2. The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the
Garrison
Engineer
(N),
Binnaguri,
District Jalpaiguri, respondent No.3,
whereby the claim of the petitioner for
second financial upgradation under the
Assure
Carrier
Promotion
Scheme
(hereinafter referred to as the "ACP
Scheme") has been denied on the
promise that the promotion of the
petitioner from the post of ''Valveman' to
the ''Pipe Fitter' has been considered as
first
financial
upgradation
for
the
purpose
of
"ACP
Scheme"
and
subsequently upgradation granted w.e.f.
9.8.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.40006000 as second financial upgradation;
that since the petitioner has already
availed two promotions or financial
upgradation, he is not entitled to any
further financial upgradation.

3. The petitioner has challenged the
said order passed by respondent No.3 by
filing O.A. No.1948 of 2005 (Krishna
Nand Barnwal vs. Union of India and
others) praying that in accordance with
the clarification issued in this regard, the
promotion of the petitioner in a common
grade
does
not
constitute
promotion/upgradation
and
as
such
ignoring the same, the petitioner shall be
entitled for the second upgradation in the
pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 under the
ACP Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1996. After
hearing the parties the said O.A. was
dismissed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad (in short CAT) vide
its order dated 31.7.2008.

4. The facts of the case are that
petitioner was initially appointed a
"Valveman" on 30.6.1967 in the pay
scale of Rs.75-1-85-2-95 which was
revised to Rs.210-4-226-EB-4-250-5-290
on the basis of Third Pay Commission in
the year 1993. The petitioner was
promoted in the year 1976 to the post of
Pipe Fitter but he claims to not have been
given any financial upgradation on the
basis of the Third Pay Commission
report as the pay scale of Valveman was
equivalent to the pay scale of Pipe fitter.
It was subsequently noticed that revision
of the pay scale done in 1973 was
incorrect
and
therefore
an
expert
classification committee was constituted
and in view of the report thereof the pay
scale was revised to Rs.260-400 in 1991.
On 24.2.2003 the petitioner was given
first financial upgradation in the pay
scale of Rs.4000-6000, however, the
respondent has treated the same as
second financial upgradation with a view
that the promotion of the petitioner from
the post of Valveman to Pipe Fitter was
the
first
promotion,
hence
the
upgradation in pay scale Rs.4000-6000/-
shall
be
constituted
as
second
upgradation under ACP Scheme. Being
aggrieved
the
petitioner
met
the
respondents personally and pointed out
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
that
it
should
be
First
Financial
Upgradation and not Second Financial
Upgradation.
Since
there
was
no
response,
the
petitioner
made
a
representation on 19.10.2004 to the CWE
and respondent No.3 requesting that the
order dated 24.2.2003 be modified to
First
Financial
Upgradation.
The
representation of the petitioner has been
rejected by the respondents observing
that on implementation of three grade
structure pay of Pipe Fitter of grade 210290 to 260-400 has been considered as
first financial upgradation. Since there
was no response, the petitioner filed the
O.A.

5. Lastly the contention of the
petitioner is that the implementation
report of classification committee was a
revision of pay in pay scale from Rs.210290 to 260-400 and was for the both post
Pipe Fitter and Valveman, hence does
not constitute any financial upgradation.
In this regard the Government of India
Department of Personnel and Training
has issued a clarification dated 10.2.200
that if the feeder and promotional posts
are on the same pay scale, the benefits
under ACP scale to be allowed ignoring
the said promotion.

6. Per contra learned for the
respondents has submitted that since the
pay scale of ''Valveman' and ''Pipe Fitter'
was
separated
by
circular
dated
15.10.1984 (Annexure SA 1 to the
supplementary
affidavit
dated
6/7.11.2008) the job of Pipe Fitter has
been upgraded and placed in the skilled
grade in the pay scale of Rs.260-400
while the job of Valveman is referred in
the semi skilled grade in the pay scale of
Rs.210-290. Therefore,the petitioner was
provided
financial
upgradation
also
along with the post of Pipe Fitter prior to
introduction of A.C.P. schemes hence the
petitioner
was
entitled
for
second
upgradation only in the pay scale of
Rs.4000-6000 and not Rs.5000-8000. He
placed reliance of judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem
Singh and another vs. State of Punjab
and
others,
(1994)5SCC
392,
contending that it is well settled principle
of law that the promotion is understood
under the service law jurisprudence as
advancement in rank, grade or both .
Therefore in view of this aspect also
petitioner was admittedly benefitted with
the advancement in the rank being
promoted to the post of Pipe Fitter from
the Volveman in the upgrade post being
different and higher pay scale of skilled
grade in comparison to the pay scale of
semi skilled grade. Hence his claim of
Rs.5000-8000 is highly misconceived
and is liable to be rejected by this Court.
He further placed reliance of the
judgment in the case of Hindustan
Lever Limited and the Workan,
reported
in
1973(2)F.L.R.398,
contending that in the present case the
respondent department has rightly fixed
to the petitioner in the pay scale of
Rs.4000-6000 and this was found correct
in view of the admitted position on the
record of the case by the learned court
below,
therefore,
the
writ
petition
deserved to be dismissed.

7. After hearing counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, the
moot point for consideration before this
Court
is
that
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case, whether the
promotion of the petitioner to the
upgraded post of Pipe Fitter (Skilled
grade) in pay scale 260-400, which prior
to its separation and upgradation vide
1 All] Darul Uloom Deoband Saharanpur V. Labour Court and others
513
circular dated 15.10.1984 was in the
same pay scale as that of Valveman
(semi-skilled) in pay scale of Rs.210-290
could
be
termed
as
"financial
upgradation under the 'ACP Scheme'.

8. Admittedly both the posts were
in same pay scale prior to 15.10.1984,
under which two "financial upgradation"
were to be granted to the eligible
employees. The petitioner having been
provided the post of Pipe Fitter prior to
to the introduction of ACP Scheme
cannot be said to have been provided
'financial upgradation' under the said
scheme;From the records it is clear that
he has been granted only one 'financial
upgradation' after the ACP Scheme was
introduced i.e. to say that his pay/salary
under the scheme has increased once
though he was eligible for two such
financial upgradation.

9. From the clarification issued by
the Government of India also, it is
evident that if the feeder and the
promotional posts are in the same pay
scale the benefits under the ACP Scheme
has
to
be
allowed
ignoring
the
promotion.

10. The case laws cited by the
respondents
are
therefore
clearly
distinguishable.

11. For all the reasons stated above
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed
with costs of Rs.20,000/- in view of
Salem
Advocate
Bar
Association,
Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India and
others, AIR 2005 (SC) 3353

12. The orders dated 17.12.2004
passed by respondent Nos.1 and dated
31.7.2008 passed by respondent No.2 are
quashed.

13. The respondents are directed to
grant second "financial upgradation to
the petitioner under the ACP Scheme
with all consequential benefits to him
after fixing his pay in the pay scales of
Rs.5000-8000
from
1.1.1996
with
interest @ 6% p.a. till the date of actual
payments.

14. The order to be complied with
by the respondents within three months
from today.

15. No orders as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61774 of 2007

Darul Uloom Deoband Saharanpur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Sumati Rani Gupta
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Charitable Education Institution-whether
exumpted from provision of Industrial
Dispute Act ?-held-'No'-termination of 37
years services of respondents/workmen
working as electrician certainly falls
within
definition
of
workmanconsidering unfair treatment labor court