# Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 174
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-tiwari-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39656
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

174
The office is directed to dispatch a copy
of this order within two weeks to
Respondent no.2.

6. The office is directed to dispatch
a copy of this order within two weeks to
Respondent no. 2.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DMHQGUD 3UDVDG 7LZDUL
DQG 2WKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 2WKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 31 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL .6 .XVKZDKD
6WDQGLQJ &RXQVHO

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

6XSHUDQQXDWLRQ $JH 7XEHZHOO RSHUDWRU
ZRUNLQJ LQ SD\ VFDOH RI 5V ±
DFFRUGLQJ
WR
*2
GDWHG

UHDGZLWK )XQGDPHQWDO 5XOHV D ±
7XEH ZHOO RSHUDWRUV FRPHV LQ WKH FDWRU\
RI JURXS & 3RVW ± UHWLULQJ DW WKH DJH RI
 KHOG 3URSHU
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
SODFHG UHOLDQFH RQ D GHFLVLRQ RI WKLV
&RXUW LQ 5DP 7HM 3DWKDN 9V 6WDWH RI 83
 83/%(& DQG WKH MXGJHPHQW
GDWHG

LQ
ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
QR
 /% 5DM .DUDQ <DGDY YV 6WDWH
RI 83 DQG RWKHUV 7KHVH WZR GHFLVLRQV
LQ P\ RSLQLRQ DUH SHU LQFXUWDP LQ YLHZ
RI WKH IDFW WKDW WKH 6DPWD 6DPLWL UHSRUW
DQG *RYHUQPHQW RUGHU UHFDOOLI\LQJ WKH
SRVWV
KDYH
QRW
EHHQ
WDNHQ
LQWR
UHFNRQLQJ 7KH *RYHUQPHQW RUGHU GDWHG
$XJXVW

UHDGZLWK
WKH
([SODQDWLRQ WR )XQGDPHQWDO 5XOH D
OHDYHV QR PDQQHU RI GRXEW WKDW WKH WXEH
ZHOO RSHUDWRUV QRZ FRPH LQ WKH FDWHJRU\
RI *URXS μ&¶ SRVWV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH
SHWLWLRQHUV
DUH
ULJKWO\
VRXJKW
WR
EH
UHWLUHG DW WKH DJH RI \HDUV
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 ,83/ %(&

By the Court

Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi for the
Petitioner
and
Sri
K.S.
Kushwaha,
Standing
Counsel
representing
the
respondents.

1. The Petitioners who are tube-well
operators are sought to be retired at the
age of 58 years. It has been submitted by
the
learned
counsel
that
since
the
Petitioners were appointed prior to Nov.
5,1985, they were/are entitled to continue
upto the age of 60 years in view of the
proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 A
inasmuch as they were clearly classified
to be Group 'D' employees on the basis of
office
memorandum
No.
15/140/81-
Karmik-1 dated Feb. 27, 1982 according
to which non-Gazetted employees the
minimum of whose pay scale was less
than Rs.354/- per month were classified to
be
Group
'D'
employees,
In
fact
according to the G.O. dated 27.2.1983,
such Gazetted posts in the scale of which
the maximum of pay was above Rs.1720/-
were classified as Group 'A' Gazetted
posts in the scale the maximum of which
did not exceed Rs.1730/- were classified
as Group 'B' posts; the non-Gazetted
posts in a scale of pay the minimum of
which was Rs.354/- or more came in
Group 'C' and the rest in Group 'D' It
was on the basis of the G.O. dated
3All] Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and others V. State of U.P. and others 175

27.2.1982 as indicated in the Government
order dated Dec. 3, 1993 (Annexure 6 to
the petition) that the tube-well operators
whose pay scale as on 27.2.82 was
Rs.350-495/- were classified as Group 'D'
employees.

2. Subsequently, however, upon
regard being has to the revision of the
scales of pay with effect from Jan. 1986
the 'Samta Samiti' recommended for
reclassification on the pattern of the
classification
made
by
the
Central
Government according to which the posts
the maximum of whose scale of pay was
Rs.4000-00 or more came in group 'A'
the posts the maximum of whose scale of
pay was Rs.2900/- or more but less than
Rs.4000.00 came in group 'B'; the post of
which the maximum of the scale was
Rs.1150/- or more but did not exceed
Rs.2900/- were placed in Group 'C' and
the rest in Group 'D' i.e. the posts
carrying the scale of pay the maximum of
which did not exceed Rs.1150/- were
recommended to be classified as group
'D' posts. The Government accepted the
recommendation vide G.O. No. Ve Aa-11739/10-89-41 (M) /89 Vitta (Vetan
Ayog) Anubhag-1 Lucknow dated 19th
May, 1989,Subject to the postulates
referred to therein produced for the
perusal of the Court by Sri K.S.
Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel,
whose assistance to the Court is indeed
commendable. In Paragraph 4 of the
supplementary
affidavit
dated
Feb,22,1990, it has been stated that the
petitioners were getting their salary in the
pay scale of Rs.950-1500. The maximum
of the pay in the scale of tube-well
operators thus, admittedly was Rs.1500/-
i.e. above Rs.1150/- and consequently, the
post of the tube-well operator falls in
Group 'C' and it has ceased to be Group
'D' post, It was certainly to be reckoned
with as Group'D' post upto Jan 1986 but
in view of the Explanation dovetailed to
the proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 (a)
the petitioners cannot draw mileage out of
the proviso to the said rule in view of the
subsequent change of classification.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on a decision of
this Court in Ram Tej Patahak vs. State of
U.P. (1994) 1 UPLBEC 593 and the
judgment dated 26.7.1993 in writ petition
no. 7353/99 (L.B.) Raj Karan Yadav vs
State of U.P. and others. These two
decisions, in my opinion, are per incuram
in view of the fact that the Samta Samiti
report
and
Government
order
reclassifying the posts have not been
taken into reckoning. The Government
order dated August 31, 1989 read with the
Explanation to Fundamental Rule 56 (a)
leaves no manner of doubt that the tubewell operators now come in the category
of Group 'C' posts and, therefore, the
petitioners are rightly sought to be retired
at the age of 58 years.

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioner then switched gear to the
submission that the petitioners have not
been
retired
on
the
basis
of
the
Government order dated August 31, 1989
but on the basis of judgment of the
Services Tribunal in claim petition No.
1053 of 1985. Be that as it may, the legal
position as explained above is that the age
of retirement of tube-well operators is 58
years inasmuch as the post of tube-well
operators now comes to fall in Group 'C'
and is no longer a Group 'D' post with
effect from Jan. 1986 by virtue of the
report of the Samta Samiti which has been
accepted by the Government reclassifying
the posts with retrospective effect.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

176
In the result, the petition fails and is
dismissed. Interim order operating in the
case shall stand discharged.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0RDU 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG 2WKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
.P 6XQLWD 6KDUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL $. 0HKURWUD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

0DQGDPXV
,QRUGLQDWH
GHOD\
E\
83
%RDUG
LQ
GHFODULQJ
VFUXWLQ\
UHVXOW
RI
,QWHUPHGLDWH
H[DPLQDWLRQ
±%RDUG
SOHDGLQJ
ORFN
RI
LQIUDVWUXFWXUH
0DQGDPXV
LVVXHG
GLUHFWLQJ
6WDWH
WR
SURYLGH WKH VDPH 'LUHFWLRQV DOVR LVVXHG
WR WKH %RDUG WR GHFODUH VFUXWLQ\ UHVXOWV
E\ WK 6HSWHPEHU
+HOG ± 3DUD
'LIILFXOWLHV
RI
WKH
%RDUG
FDQQRW
EH
LJQRUHG RU RYHUORRNHG )RU WKLV SXUSRVH D
JHQHUDO PDQGDPXV LV EHLQJ LVVXHG WR WKH
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
6HFUHWDU\
0DGK\DPLN 6KLNVKD DQG &KLHI 6HFUHWDU\
*RYHUQPHQW
RI
83
WR
FRQVLGHU
WKH
SURSRVDO RI WKH %RDUG LI RQH LV VXEPLWWHG
ZLWK
UHOHYDQW
IDFWV
ILJXUHV
DQG
GRFXPHQWV
IRU
SURYLGLQJ
UHTXLVLWH
IDFLOLWLHV WR KROG μSURSHU¶ H[DPLQDWLRQV DV
ZHOO
DV
μVFUXWLQ\¶
WKH
VDPH VKDOO EH
FRQVLGHUHG
JLYLQJ
WRS
SULRULW\
DV
μ(GXFDWLRQ¶ FDQQRW EH LJQRUHG LI ZH ZDQW
WR SXW WKH 6WDWH LQ RUGHU 5HVXOWV KDYH WR
EH GHFODUHG ZLWKLQ WKH GHVLUHG WLPH VR
WKDW VWXGHQWV DQG WKHLU SDUHQWV DUH QRW
KDUDVVHG DSDUW IURP EXUGHQLQJ WKLV FRXUW
FRPSHOOLQJ
LQGLYLGXDO
WR
ILOH
ZULW
SHWLWLRQV
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
 (GX 6HU &DVHV $OO

By the Court

1. This is a petition by Moar Singh,
who had appeared in the Intermediate
Examination- 2000 conducted by U.P.
Board and had applied for scrutiny after
paying requisite fee within the time
prescribed by the Board itself

2. This petition was taken up on 16th
August, 2000 and thereafter at the request
of learned counsel representing State and
U.P. Board, adjourned from time to time
in order to enable the respondentauthorities to assist the court in informing
minimum possible time required for
completing the entire work of scrutiny
with regard to the High School and
Intermediate
Examination-2000
conducted by the Board.

3. Sri A.N. Verma, Additional
Secretary, U.P. Board was present on the
last date as well as he is present in Court
today. On his instructions the learned
Standing Counsel has made submissions
and apprised the Court about magnitude
of work to be undertaken by the Board
while deciding the scrutiny applications
with respect to aforesaid examination.

4. A suggestion is being made that
the Board shall complete 'entire scrutiny
work' of the said examinations and it
shall declare/publish the results on or
before October 31, 2000.