# Smt. Meena Manral & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61522 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meena-manral-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-42880
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection of
status and pay-given by High Courtconfirmed by Apex Court-petitioner working
as Project officer under Basic Education
department-by order 23.03.01 treated excadre holder post-quashed-with finding once
government decided to absorbs considering
long
period
of
their
service-petitioner
became surplus employee entitled for pay
protection as well as status-by impugned
order government again decide to absorbs
on post of LT grade-in revise pay scale-heldorder nothing but mud wash quasheddirection to reconsider fisibility of pay
protection as well as status-if found entitled
shall be given every consequential benefit.

Held: Para-14
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consequently,
we
direct
the
State
Government to reconsider the matter
pertaining to the issue of grant of
equivalent status to the petitioners as
ordered by this court in its judgment
dated 05.04.2002 by considering all the
relevant aspects of the matter including
the recommendation dated 23.06.2010
against
existing
post
or
any
other
equivalent post. It shall be open for the
petitioners
also
to
file
appropriate
representation
stating
therein
their
version before the State Government. The
State Government shall take a decision in
this regard within a period of three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before it and in
the event, the claim of the petitioners is
accepted then all consequential benefits
flowing therefrom shall also be granted to
them. The pay protection granted under
the order dated 27.09.2012 shall be
subject to the fresh decision to be taken
as aforesaid.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Meena Manral & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647

16. From the records we find that for
six months no action was taken in the matter
of passing of the orders in respect of the
application to sanction for prosecution made
by the C.B.C.I.D. It was only when a
contempt petition was filed before the High
Court being Contempt Petition No.2689 of
2012 that the State Government got an
opinion from the Special Secretary (Law) &
Addl. Legal Remembrances noted above.
Thereafter, the Special Secretary (Law) &
Addl. Legal Remembrances, Govt. of U.P.,
Lucknow has proceeded to refuse the sanction
for prosecution. We may record that the date
fixed in the contempt proceedings for decision
being taken on the request of the C.B.C.I.D
was 27.05.2013.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances we
feel it just and proper to quash the order dated
23.05.2013. It is ordered accordingly.

18. Having regard to the report of the
C.B.C.I.D we direct the Principal Secretary,
Home, Govt. of U. P., Lucknow to revisit the
matter and act in accordance with law
preferably within a period of two weeks of
the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It
may only to be noticed that the High Court in
its order dated 22.07.2011 quoted above had
specifically directed that the report shall be
submitted by the C.B.C.I.D. to the Court
concerned.

19. So far as Rangnath Pandey, Special
Secretary
(Law)
&
Addl.
Legal
Remembrances, Govt. of U. P., Lucknow is
concerned, he is a judicial officer on deputation
with the State Government. He is cautioned to
be more careful in future.

20. Learned Additional Government
Advocate has placed reliance upon the
judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra
Vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2014) 1
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 515.

21. We have gone through the
judgment and we find that the same is clearly
distinguishable in the facts of the case.

22. Writ petition is allowed with
aforesaid observations.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61522 of 2012

Smt. Meena Manral & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri L.C. Srivastava, Sri Neeraj Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection of
status and pay-given by High Courtconfirmed by Apex Court-petitioner working
as Project officer under Basic Education
department-by order 23.03.01 treated excadre holder post-quashed-with finding once
government decided to absorbs considering
long
period
of
their
service-petitioner
became surplus employee entitled for pay
protection as well as status-by impugned
order government again decide to absorbs
on post of LT grade-in revise pay scale-heldorder nothing but mud wash quasheddirection to reconsider fisibility of pay
protection as well as status-if found entitled
shall be given every consequential benefit.

Held: Para-14
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consequently,
we
direct
the
State
Government to reconsider the matter
pertaining to the issue of grant of
equivalent status to the petitioners as
ordered by this court in its judgment
dated 05.04.2002 by considering all the
relevant aspects of the matter including
the recommendation dated 23.06.2010
against
existing
post
or
any
other
equivalent post. It shall be open for the
petitioners
also
to
file
appropriate
representation
stating
therein
their
version before the State Government. The
State Government shall take a decision in
this regard within a period of three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before it and in
the event, the claim of the petitioners is
accepted then all consequential benefits
flowing therefrom shall also be granted to
them. The pay protection granted under
the order dated 27.09.2012 shall be
subject to the fresh decision to be taken
as aforesaid.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. The petitioners were engaged under a
non-formal education scheme on temporary
basis against newly created post of Project
Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.770/- to
Rs.1600/-. In the year 2001, the Government
of India took a decision to abolish the said
scheme of non-formal education and initiated
another scheme in the name of E.G.S./ A.I.A.
Consequent to the abolition of the scheme, the
petitioners were faced with a situation of
termination of their services. In these
circumstances, a writ petition being Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.42806 of 2000 was
filed by Pradeshiya Pariyojna Adhikdari,
Anopcharik Shiksha Sangh, U.P., which was
disposed of on 09.10.2000 with a direction to
the State Government to consider the
representations of the petitioners. The said
representations came to be dismissed by the
State Government on 23.03.2001. However,
the State Government taking a lenient view
passed an order on 24.03.2001, by which the
petitioners, i.e. the project officers, who were
not having any lien anywhere, their services
were decided to be absorbed as Assistant
Teachers in L.T. Grade instead of terminating
their services and in pursuance of the said
decision, the petitioners were adjusted against
the said post in government inter colleges in
the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/-.

2. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid
orders dated 23.03.2001 and 24.03.2001, the
petitioners approached this court by filing
various writ petitions, which were clubbed
together and decided on 05.04.2002. The order
dated 23.03.2001 was quashed. This court was
of the view that as the government had not
addressed itself to factors relevant to the
question as to protection of pay and status, the
same should be remitted to the State
Government for reconsideration. Accordingly,
the order dated 23.03.2001 was quashed. The
matter was remitted to reconsider the feasibility
of protection of pay and status of the petitioners
after taking into reckoning of the relevant
factors stated in the judgment and, if necessary,
to modify its order dated 24.03.2001
accordingly. Thus, essentially the court was of
the view that while absorbing the petitioners as
assistant teachers in L.T. Grade, the State
Government had not considered the pay and
status commensurate with the post of Project
Officer, which was being held by them earlier
and accordingly, the aforesaid directions were
given.

3. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment
makes it amply clear that the order dated
23.03.2001 was quashed and the matter was
remanded to the State Government to
reconsider the feasibility of "protection of pay
and status of the petitioners after taking into
reckoning all the relevant factors stated in the
2 All] Smt. Meena Manral & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
649
said judgment and if necessary to modify its
order dated 24.03.2001, accordingly."

4. The said judgment was challenged
by the State Government before the Supreme
Court by means of Civil Appeal No.8658 of
2002 and connected appeals, which were
dismissed on 01.12.2011. The order passed by
the
Supreme
Court
is
being
quoted
hereinbelow:

"Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgment,
we are of the opinion that the direction by
the High Court to the Government to
consider the question of protection of pay
and status of the writ petitioners in the light
of the observations made in the impugned
judgment, does not warrant our interference
with the impugned judgment. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.

However, having regard to the fact that
the issue is hanging fire for over 10 years, we
would request the authorities concerned to
take a final decision in the matter, as
expeditiously as practicable and in any case,
not later than 6 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.

In view of the order passed in the
appeal, all applications for impleadment
and intervention are rendered infructuous
and are disposed of accordingly.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 631 of 2007

In light of the order passed in Civil
Appeal No. 8658 of 2002 arising out of
SLP(C) No. 12422 of 2002 [@ C.M.W.P.
No. 18619 of 2001], this appeal also
merits dismissal. We order accordingly.
However, insofar as the enforcement of
order dated 5th September, 2002 passed
by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital in terms of the subsequent order
dated 8th June, 2004 passed in Civil
Contempt Petition No. 96 of 2003 is
concerned, it will be open to the parties to
pursue appropriate remedy as may be
available to them in this behalf."

5. After the aforesaid matter attained
finality, the opposite parties considered
the matter and passed an order on
27.09.2012, whereby the petitioners were
granted
the
revised
pay
scale
corresponding to the pay scale of post of
Project Officer/ Assistant Project Officer
after seeking approval of the finance
department. The relevant extract of the
order dated 27.09.2012 is being quoted
hereinbelow:

"2 bl laca/k esa 'kklu }kjk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa
;ksftr dh x;h fo'ks"k vuqKk ;kfpdk la[;k& 8658@2002 ]
fnukad 01 fnlEcj] 2011 esa fn;s x;s vkns'kksa ds dze esa
iquZfopkj djrs gq;s foRr foHkkx }kjk dh x;h fVIi.kh ds izdk'k
esa fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&

"ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ds inksa
ij in/kkjd dze'k% osrueku :0 6500&10500 ,oa 5000&8000
esa rSukr Fks k NBs osru vk;ksx ds lanHkZ esa bu osruekuksa dk
lkekU; iqujh{k.k dze'k% osru cS.M&2 :0 9300&34800 ,oa xzsM
osru :0 4600 ,oa osru cS.M&2 :0 9300&34800 ,oa xzsM osru
:0 4600 ,oa osru cS.M&2 :0 9300&34800 xszM osru :0 4200
ds inksa ij rSukrh fn;s tkus ls muds osru ,oa Lrj dk laj{k.k
(protection of pay and status) gks tkrk gS k

3 bl laca/k esa eq>s dgus dks funsZ'k gqvk gS fd ,sls ifj;kstuk
vf/kdkjh @ lgk;d ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh dks 'kklu ds i= la0
454@15&68&izkS0&2001&200'93'@2000 fnukad 24 ekpZ] 2001
}kjk ,y0Vh0xzsM ds lgk;d v/;kid ds laoxhZ; inksa ij
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lek;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk k rRle; 281 ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@
lgk;d ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k x;k Fkk
dsoy 36 ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@ lgk;d ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh us
,y0Vh0xzsM ds lgk;d v/;kid ds laoxhZ; inksa ij dk;ZHkkj
ugha xzg.k fd;k Fkk k mudh iwoZ dh lsokvksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs
gq;s ek0 mPpre U;k;y; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa mijksDr
'klukns'k dk ykHk iznku djrs gq;s ,y0Vh0xzsM ds lgk;d
v/;kid ds laoxhZ; fjDr inksa ij lek;ksftr @ rSukrh fd;s
tkus dh dk;Zokgh lEiUu djk;k tk; k

4 mDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw ekuk tk;sxk k"

6. Still not being satisfied, the
petitioners
filed
instant
writ
petition
challenging the aforesaid order dated
27.09.2012 on the ground that the State
Government has not properly considered
their cases in the light of the earlier judgment
of this court dated 05.04.2002. It has been
contended on behalf of the petitioners that
while passing the impugned order, the State
Government has failed to apply its mind to
the aspect of grant of status equivalent to the
post of Project Officer/ Assistant Project
Officer and has erroneously granted pay
scale of the said post assuming that by doing
so, the equivalent status has also been
automatically confirmed.

7. While entertaining this writ
petition, an interim order was passed on
27.11.2012, by which the operation of the
impugned order dated 27.09.2012 was
stayed leaving it open for the State
Government to pass appropriate orders
dealing with the issue. However, no such
decision has been taken by the State
Government during the pendency of the
writ petition.

8. On 09.03.2014, after hearing the
matter at length, this court had passed the
following order:

"By means of this writ petition the
petitioners have challenged the order
dated 27.9.2012 passed by the State
Government in-purported compliance of
the earlier judgment of the Apex Court
dated 1.12.2011 passed in Civil Appeal
No.8658 of 2002 and connected matters.

By means of the impugned order as per
the State Government the claim of pay and
status of the post of Project Officer/Assistant
Project Officer have been granted to the
petitioners who have been absorbed as L.T.
Grade Assistant Teachers. However, the
grievance of the petitioners is that under the
judgment dated 1.12.2011 their case for
grant of status equivalent to the post of
Project
Officer
was
required
to
be
considered which has not been done by the
State Government.

The contention is that in view of the
said judgment they are entitled to be
considered for being absorbed on the post
equivalent to the post of Project Officer,
namely, D.I./A.D.I/.D.I.G.S. and to be
given
salary
in
the
pay
scale
corresponding to the said post which has
not been done in the instant case.

Sri Sashi Nandan, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners in one of
the matters has invited the attention of the
Court to certain recommendations made by
Under Secretary, Education Department,
Government of U.P. to the State Government
by which he has proposed that the post of
Deputy Basic Education Officers in the payscale of Rs.6000-10500/- which are vacant
should be kept vacant and the absorption of
the petitioners should be considered against
2 All] Smt. Meena Manral & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
651
the said post which are equivalent to the
earlier post of Project Officer.

The
contention
is
that
this
recommendation has not been considered
and the impugned order has been passed
in a mechanical manner.

Put up this matter on Tuesday next, i.e.
13.5.2014.

Learned counsel for the respective parties
shall address the Court on the issue that
what would be the modality for absorbing
the petitioners on a post equivalent to the
post of Project Officer as also the
feasibility by such an exercise keeping in
view the relevant service rules applicable
to the said post and the promotional
opportunities etc. of the Feeder Cadres as
also the nature of duties to be performed."

9. Today, the matter has been heard
again on the issue of according status
equivalent to the post of Project Officer/
Assistant Project Officer.

10. After hearing learned counsel for
the petitioners as also the learned standing
counsel for State and after perusing the
material on record including the affidavits
filed, we are of the view that the State has
not considered the matter strictly in
accordance with the observations of this
court made in the earlier judgment dated
05.04.2002. Under some misconception, it
has arrived at the conclusion that by
absorbing the petitioners in L.T. Grade as
Assistant Teachers and granting the
revised pay-scale in respect of the payscale of the erstwhile post of Project
Officer,
status
of
Project
Officer/
Assistant Project Officer also stood
conferred.
Learned counsel
for the
petitioners have contended that under the
non-formal education scheme, they were
not performing a teaching job but were
exercising supervisory functions, whereas
their absorption has been made on the
post of Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade,
which is a teaching post. Learned counsel
for the petitioners have also invited the
attention
of
the
court
to
a
recommendation dated 23.06.2010 made
by the Under Secretary, Department of
Education to the State Government, a
copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6
to the writ petition. The relevant extracts
of the said recommendation are as under:

"bl laca/k esa iwoZ i`"B&7 ,oa 8 ij fLFkfr Li"V dh tk pqdh gSa k
izdj.k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 ds 'kklukns'k
l[a;k&20@1@91@dk&2&2008 fnukad 9 twu 2009 esa ;g uhfrxr
fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gS fd foHkkxksa esa miyC/k ljIyl dkfeZdksa
dk lek;kstu dj fn;k tk;s vkSj buds lek;kstu gksus rd
fjDr inksa dks u Hkjk tk;s k blfy, ljdkj @ foHkkx dk ;g
nkf;Ro curk gS fd budk vfr'kh?kz lek;kstu dj fn;k tk;s k
buds iSr`d foHkkx csfld f'k{kk vUrxZr gh fujh{k.k vuqHko ds
vuq:i osrueku :0 6500&10500 esa mi csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh
ds 27 vkLFkfxr in fjDr gS k blfy, mDr fjDr inksa ds lkis{k
lek;kstu fd;s tkus esa dksbZ

fof/kd vFkok vU; dfBukbZ ugha gS k vr% fouez vuqjks/k gS fd
iz'uxr ljIyl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkfj;ksa dk bUgha ds iSr`d
foHkkx csfld f'k{kk vUrxZr mi csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ds fjDr
27 vkLFkfxr inksa ds lkis{k lek;kstu vkns'k fuxZr fd;s tkus
ds laca/k esa d`i;k mPpkns'k izkIr djuk pkgsa k"

11. On an overall consideration of
the facts and circumstances of the case,
we find that the impugned order does not
show
any
consideration
of
the
observations made in the report of the
Under Secretary as quoted hereinabove.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The relevant aspects noted by us in the
order dated 09.05.2014 have also not been
adverted to by the State Government
while taking the impugned decision.

12. The reasons given in the
impugned order for granting of status of
Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade does not
appear to be sound. The State has not
considered the relevant aspects of the
matter, as directed by this court on
05.04.2002 and as has been noticed by us
in the order dated 09.05.2014.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the impugned order, in so far as it relates
to the grant of status of Assistant Teacher
in L.T. Grade to the petitioners is
concerned, is not sustainable and the same
is quashed, and so far as the grant of
status equivalent to the post of Project
Officer/ Assistant Project Officer was
concerned,
the
same
requires
no
interference at this stage.

14. Consequently, we direct the
State Government to reconsider the matter
pertaining to the issue of grant of
equivalent status to the petitioners as
ordered by this court in its judgment dated
05.04.2002 by considering all the relevant
aspects of the matter including the
recommendation dated 23.06.2010 against
existing post or any other equivalent post.
It shall be open for the petitioners also to
file appropriate representation stating
therein their version before the State
Government. The State Government shall
take a decision in this regard within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order before it and in the event, the claim
of the petitioners is accepted then all
consequential benefits flowing therefrom
shall also be granted to them. The pay
protection granted under the order dated
27.09.2012 shall be subject to the fresh
decision to be taken as aforesaid.

15. The existing status of the
petitioner shall continue till the aforesaid
decision
is
taken
by
the
State
Government.

16. The writ petition is partly
allowed.
--------