# Ram Vilas v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 614
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 24963 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-vilas-v-state-of-u-p-48220
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Payment of benefits -
Service conditions of the employees of
the Nigam would be same as are
applicable to the employees of the State
Government
under
the
Rules,
Regulations and Orders applicable to the
State Government servants so long as
the
same
are
not
altered
by
the
respondents in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. (Para 5)

In the present case, only administrative
orders are issued by the respondents and
there is no alteration made with regard to the
service conditions of the petitioners viz-a-viz.
the employees of the State Government.
Merely by office orders change in the
service conditions cannot be made. It is
not disputed that benefits of the 6th Pay
Commission are covered under the term
'service conditions' and, therefore, the said
benefits are to be made applicable to the
petitioners also from the date the same are
made applicable to the State Government
employees. (Para 6)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alter the procedure for selection than what
is prescribed under the relevant Service
Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.
Since I have already interpreted both the
rules, I am not able to sustain resolution
passed by U.P. Subordinate Selection
Commission dated 28th January, 2020 and
same is hereby quashed as quashing of the
notification dated 11th November, 2021
would result in revival of another illegal
resolution of the Commission dated 28th
January, 2020.

33. Insofar as 3rd November, 2021
order of the State Government is concerned
since it only refers to some letter of
Selection Commission which has not been
brought on record and so it is hereby
provided that in the event it relates to the
selection pursuant to the advertisements in
question, the same shall also stand quashed
to that extent.

34. The writ petition thus succeeds
and stands allowed as indicated above.
However, further directions is issued to the
Selection Commission to conclude the
selection process strictly in accordance
with law and as per the Service Rules, 2014
as expeditiously as possible.
----------
(2022)03ILR A614
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 24963 of 2021
with
Writ A No. 5390 of 2021

Ram Vilas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, Sri Karunakar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Nirankar Singh

A. Service Law - Payment of benefits -
Service conditions of the employees of
the Nigam would be same as are
applicable to the employees of the State
Government
under
the
Rules,
Regulations and Orders applicable to the
State Government servants so long as
the
same
are
not
altered
by
the
respondents in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. (Para 5)

In the present case, only administrative
orders are issued by the respondents and
there is no alteration made with regard to the
service conditions of the petitioners viz-a-viz.
the employees of the State Government.
Merely by office orders change in the
service conditions cannot be made. It is
not disputed that benefits of the 6th Pay
Commission are covered under the term
'service conditions' and, therefore, the said
benefits are to be made applicable to the
petitioners also from the date the same are
made applicable to the State Government
employees. (Para 6)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Harwindra Kumar Vs Chief Engineer, Karmik
& ors., (2005) 13 SCC 300 (Para 4)

Present petition challenges orders dated
10.08.2021 and 19.01.2021.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri DineshKumar Verma,
learned
counsel
for
petitioners,
Sri
Nirankar
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No.2 and 3 and Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.
3 All. Ram Vilas Vs. State of U.P.
615

2. Petitioners have approached this
Court for quashing of the orders dated
10.8.2021 and 19.1.2021 and further for a
mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties to implement the recommendations
of the 6th Pay Commission on the
petitioners w.e.f. from 20.7.2015, i.e., the
date when the similarly situated persons
have been granted the said benefits
(Annexure No.3). Further an interest is also
sought on the delayed payment of the 6th
and 7th Pay Commission and also prayer is
made for payment of dearness allowance to
the petitioners in accordance with the
Government
Order
dated
16.10.2009
(Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

3. After the coming into force of 6th
Pay Commission, different orders were
passed recommending the benefits of
payments of 6th Pay Commission to the
petitioners w.e.f. 20.7.2015 while the State
Government employees were paid the said
benefits from 01.01.2006. Petitioners are
praying parity with the State Government
employees.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits
petitioners were appointed with the U.P.
Pichhra Varg Vitt Evam Vikas Nigam
Limited, Lucknow. He further submits that
the entire controversy with regard to the
status of the employees of the Jal Nigam
was considered at length by Supreme Court
in case of Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief
Engineer, Karmik and Others reported in
(2005) 13 SCC 300 and after referring to
the provisions of the said Act, Rules and
Regulations applicable, in paragraph-7, 9
and 10, the Supreme Court held-:

"7................From the aforesaid
provisions, it would be clear that the
appointed date for the purposes of the Act
was 18th June, 1975 when the Nigam was
established and under Section 37 of the
Act,
conditions
of
service
of
the
appellants/petitioners who were employed
in the Local Self Engineering Department
of the Government of Uttar Pradesh before
the appointed date, were continued to
remain the same as they were before the
appointed date unless and until the same
are altered by the Nigam under the
provisions of the Act. Section 97 confers
power upon the Nigam with the previous
approval of the State Government to frame
Regulations
in
relation
to
service
conditions of employees of the Nigam and
acting thereunder, Regulations were framed
by the Nigam in the year 1978, Regulation
31 whereof provides that service conditions
of the employees of the Nigam shall be
governed by such rules, regulations and
orders which are applicable to other serving
government servants functioning in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, from a bare
reading of Section 37 and Regulation 31, it
would be clear that the service conditions
of the employees of the Nigam would be
the same as are applicable to the employees
of the State Government under the Rules,
Regulations and Orders applicable to such
government servants so long the same are
not altered by the Nigam in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. If
Regulations would not have been framed,
the Nigam had residuary power under
Section 15(1) of the Act whereby under
general power it could change the service
conditions and the same could remain
operative so long regulations were not
framed but in the present case, regulations
were already framed in the year 1978
specifically providing in Regulation 31 that
the conditions of service of the employees
of the Nigam shall be governed by the
Rules, Regulations and Orders governing
the conditions of service of government
servants which would not only mean then
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in existence but any amendment made
therein as neither in Section 37 nor in
Regulation 31, it has been mentioned that
the Rules then in existence shall only
apply. After the amendment made in Rule
56(a) of the Rules by the State Government
and
thereby
enhancing
the
age
of
superannuation of government servants
from 58 years to 60 years, the same would
equally apply to the employees of the
Nigam and in case the State Government as
well as the Nigam intended that the same
would not be applicable, the only option
with it was to make suitable amendment in
Regulation 31 of the Regulations after
taking previous approval of the State
Government
and
by
simply
issuing
direction
by
the
State
Government
purporting to act under Section 89 of the
Act and thereupon taking administrative
decision by the Nigam under Section 15 of
the Act in relation to age of the employees
would
not
tantamount
to
amending
Regulation 31 of the Regulations.

9. In the present case,
as
Regulations have been framed by the
Nigam
specifically
enumerating
in
Regulation 31 thereof that the Rules
governing
the
service
conditions
of
government servants shall equally apply to
the employees of the Nigam, it was not
possible for the Nigam to take an
administrative
decision
acting
under
Section 15(1) of the Act pursuant to
direction of the State Government in the
matter of policy issued under Section 89 of
the Act and directing that the enhanced age
of superannuation of 60 years applicable to
the government servants shall not apply to
the employees of the Nigam. In our view,
the only option for the Nigam was to make
suitable amendment in Regulation 31 with
the
previous
approval
of
the
State
Government providing thereunder age of
superannuation of its employees to be 58
years, in case, it intended that 60 years
which
was
the
enhanced
age
of
superannuation of the State Government
employees should not be made applicable
to employees of the Nigam. It was also not
possible for the State Government to give a
direction purporting to Act under Section
89 of the Act to the effect that the enhanced
age of 60 years would not be applicable to
the employees of the Nigam treating the
same to be a matter of policy nor it was
permissible for the Nigam on the basis of
such a direction of the State Government in
policy matter of the Nigam to take an
administrative
decision
acting
under
Section 15(1) of the Act as the same would
be inconsistent with Regulation 31 which
was framed by the Nigam in the exercise of
powers conferred upon it under Section
97(2) of the Act.

10. For the foregoing reasons, we
are of the view that so long Regulation 31
of the Regulations is not amended, 60 years
which is the age of superannuation of
government servants employed under the
State of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable to
the employees of the Nigam. However, it
would be open to the Nigam with the
previous approval of the State Government
to make suitable amendment in Regulation
31
and
alter
service
conditions
of
employees of the Nigam, including their
age of superannuation. It is needless to say
that if it is so done, the same shall be
prospective. "

5. On the basis of the aforesaid
judgment, submission made by counsel for
petitioners is that service conditions of the
employees of the Nigam would be same as
are applicable to the employees of the State
Government under the Rules, Regulations
and
Orders
applicable
to
the
State
3 All. Adityendra Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
617
Government servants so long as the same
are not altered by the respondents in
accordance with the provisions of the said
Act.
Applicability
of
the
aforesaid
judgment could not be disputed by the
learned Standing Counsel and counsels for
the respondent-Corporation.

6. In the present case, only
administrative orders are issued by the
respondents and there is no alteration made
with regard to the service conditions of the
petitioners viz-a-viz the employees of the
State Government. Merely by office orders
change in the service conditions cannot be
made. It is not disputed that benefits of the
6th Pay Commission are covered under the
term 'service conditions' and, therefore, the
said benefits are to be made applicable to
the petitioners also from the date the same
are
made
applicable
to
the
State
Government employees.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned orders dated 10.8.2021 and
19.1.2021 are set aside and respondents are
directed to pay the benefits of the 6th Pay
Commission to the petitioners w.e.f.
20.7.2015 as was provided to the similarly
situated persons by the respondents by the
order dated 24.6.2020 (Annexure No.3) and
further to pay the dearness allowance as is
being provided to the State Government
employees within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.

8. With the aforesaid directions, all the
writ petitions are allowed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A617
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 26110 of 2018

Adityendra Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, Sri Santosh Kumar
Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Compulsory retirement
from the post of Deputy District Election
Officer
-
Subjective
satisfaction
-
Charge of not performing the duty
properly - After enquiry, the petitioner
was awarded the punishment by placing
him on the minimum pay scale - Order
of
compulsory
retirement
was
challenged on the ground of its being
issued as camouflage to cut short the
disciplinary
proceeding
-
Held,
the
screening committee has formed the
opinion on the subjective satisfaction on
appreciation of entire record of the
petitioner - Pendency of disciplinary
proceeding
was
not
at
all
in
consideration
of
the
screening
committee in forming an opinion that
the petitioner should be compulsorily
retired in the public interest. (Para 20
and 23)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Writ A No. 45254 of 2017; Ghanshyam Misra
Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2. Special Appeal Defective No. 24 of 2018;
Rizwan Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
3. Special Appeal No. 496 of 2018; Brijesh
Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
4. St. of U.P. Vs Abhai Kishore Masta; 1995(1)
SCC 336
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J. )