# Srikant Srivastava & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1824
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 20816 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/srikant-srivastava-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45069
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Service - Payment of salary - Uttar
Pradesh
Advocate
General
and
Law
Officers' Establishment Service Rules,
2009;
The
United
Provinces
Legal
Remembrancer's
and
Law
Officers
Establishment Rules, 1942

The issue involved is with regards to the
procedure for fixation of salary to the
incumbents holding the post of Personal
Assistant, when the status of the post of
Personal Assistant along with certain other
posts of the office of State Law Officers,
Allahabad/Lucknow itself has been upgraded by
giving higher Grade Pay. (Para 11)

According to respondents, petitioners were not
in the employment of the State Government at
the
relevant
date
i.e.
01.01.2006
and
thereafter, the pay of the petitioners was not to
be revised according to the GO dated
1826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
08.12.2008. The fixation of their pay was to be
made as per the procedure laid down in Para
11 of the GO dated 08.12.2008, wherein
specific provision has been made by the State
Government for fixation of the pay of those
employees, who had been given promotion in
the revised pay structure i.e., after the relevant
cut-off date 01.01.2006. (Para 18, 19)

The Court held - The petitioners joined the post
in question after 01.01.2006, whereas similarly
situated employees of the establishment of this
Court were engaged in the year 2008. They
were accorded promotion as Review Officer
and they had been extended the said benefit.
All
the
employees
working
the
State
Government or establishment of this Court are
getting the same pay scale as is admissible to
the
corresponding
posts
of
the
Central
Government and the said decision was taken
with effect from 01.01.1986 according to the
report of Equivalence Committee, U.P. The
State
Government
failed
to
take
into
consideration the aforesaid policy decision of
the State Government and to provide same
scale to the petitioners as is admissible to their
counterparts working in the establishment of
this Court as well as the State Government.
There has been complete non-application of
mind in not adhering the aforesaid policy
decision as well as to the Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 29.07.1998, in
the
case
of
Private
Secretaries
Brotherhood, High Court Allahabad and
another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, CMWP
No. 17885 of 1996, which has since been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
judgement passed in Writ A No. 40762 of 1996.
(Para 30)

Writ petition allowed.

Present petition is against order dated
25.10.2016, passed by Principal Secretary
(Law), U.P. Government, Lucknow.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 47,564. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

1 All. Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1825
and 2.5.2016. In the absence of any
legally protected or judicially enforceable
subsisting right the petitioners are not
entitled for mandamus. Their challenge to
condition no. 4 of the Government Orders
dated 6.6.2014 and 2.5.2016 is not only
totally merit-less but also not permissible. It is
also hit by principles of approbate and
reprobate. The condition no. 4 of the
Government Orders dated 6.6.2014 and
2.5.2016 is neither invalid nor it is
permissible for the petitioners to challenge it.

(vi) Principles of law on public
employment as discussed in paras 31 to 38
above leaves no manner of doubt that
regular employment must be a rule. The
power of the State as an employer is more
limited than that of a private employer
inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional
limitation. But some times, this process is
not adhered and constitutional scheme of
public
employment
is
by-passed
as
happened in the present case. Such
employment
is
called
"litigious
employment". Brief history of litigation of
the part time teachers on honorarium /
petitioners have been briefly noted by the
Division
Bench
in
the
order
dated
27.5.2016 in the case of Dr. Deena Nath
Yadav & 7 others (supra). The Government
Order dated 6.6.2014 and amended Section
31-E of the Act, 1980 is a one time measure
for
absorption.
Absorption
in public
employment is not a right. It is an exception
to the normal rule of public employment. It
is subject to conditions of absorption. Once
the petitioners have knowingly and with
open eyes exercised the option for their
absorption in public employment, they
cannot turn round and say that condition no.
4 is arbitrary. Past service as part time
teacher on honorarium prior to absorption
cannot be added in their length of service in
the absence of any constitutional or legal
right.

42. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
The petitioners are not entitled to any
relief. Therefore, the writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1824

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ-A No. 20816 of 2017

Srikant Srivastava & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vishnu Sahai, Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal,
Sri
Ramesh
Chandra
Upadhyay,
Sri
Ramesh Upadhyay, Sri Rajan Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service - Payment of salary - Uttar
Pradesh
Advocate
General
and
Law
Officers' Establishment Service Rules,
2009;
The
United
Provinces
Legal
Remembrancer's
and
Law
Officers
Establishment Rules, 1942

The issue involved is with regards to the
procedure for fixation of salary to the
incumbents holding the post of Personal
Assistant, when the status of the post of
Personal Assistant along with certain other
posts of the office of State Law Officers,
Allahabad/Lucknow itself has been upgraded by
giving higher Grade Pay. (Para 11)

According to respondents, petitioners were not
in the employment of the State Government at
the
relevant
date
i.e.
01.01.2006
and
thereafter, the pay of the petitioners was not to
be revised according to the GO dated
1826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
08.12.2008. The fixation of their pay was to be
made as per the procedure laid down in Para
11 of the GO dated 08.12.2008, wherein
specific provision has been made by the State
Government for fixation of the pay of those
employees, who had been given promotion in
the revised pay structure i.e., after the relevant
cut-off date 01.01.2006. (Para 18, 19)

The Court held - The petitioners joined the post
in question after 01.01.2006, whereas similarly
situated employees of the establishment of this
Court were engaged in the year 2008. They
were accorded promotion as Review Officer
and they had been extended the said benefit.
All
the
employees
working
the
State
Government or establishment of this Court are
getting the same pay scale as is admissible to
the
corresponding
posts
of
the
Central
Government and the said decision was taken
with effect from 01.01.1986 according to the
report of Equivalence Committee, U.P. The
State
Government
failed
to
take
into
consideration the aforesaid policy decision of
the State Government and to provide same
scale to the petitioners as is admissible to their
counterparts working in the establishment of
this Court as well as the State Government.
There has been complete non-application of
mind in not adhering the aforesaid policy
decision as well as to the Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 29.07.1998, in
the
case
of
Private
Secretaries
Brotherhood, High Court Allahabad and
another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, CMWP
No. 17885 of 1996, which has since been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
judgement passed in Writ A No. 40762 of 1996.
(Para 30)

Writ petition allowed.

Present petition is against order dated
25.10.2016, passed by Principal Secretary
(Law), U.P. Government, Lucknow.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Rajan Upadhyay, Advocate appearing for
the petitioners and Shri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel alongwith Shri Devesh Vikram,
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. Srikant Srivastava and 6 others
have approached this Court interalia for
following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari calling
for the records of the case and quashing
the impugned order dated 25.10.2016
(Annexure No.38 to the present writ
petition) passed by the respondent no.1,
served on the petitioner no.1, on 31.3.2017
through letter dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure
No.37-B to the present writ petition);

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to fix and
pay the salary of the petitioners in
accordance with the fitment chart issued
by the State Government by means of the
Government
Order
dated
16.9.2010
(Annexure No.13 to the present writ
petition) with effect from the date of
promotion of the petitioners on the post of
Personal Assistant;

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the
salary of the petitioners in accordance with
the payment of the salary as made to the
employees of the High Court, Allahabad in
pursuance of the Government Order dated
29.4.2019 (Annexure No.12 to the present
writ petition)

(iv) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the
arrears of difference of amount with effect
from the date of promotion of the
1 All. Srikant Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1827
petitioners on the post of the Personal
Assistant alongwith the interest at the rate
of 18% per annum."

3. In order to appreciate the
controversy in the present writ petition, it
is essential to notice salient facts of the
case.

4. The petitioners were initially
appointed on the post of Stenographer in
the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/- in the
office of U.P. State Law Officers, High
Court, Allahabad/Lucknow on 03.01.2006
and in pursuance of the appointment
letters, they joined on the said post on
5.1.2006/6.1.2006. Thereafter, they were
promoted on the post of the Personal
Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-1759000/- on 10.07.2006. Meanwhile, the
recommendations
of
the
6th
Pay
Commission with regard to the employees
of
the
State
Government
were
implemented by the State Government
with effect from 01.01.2006 by means of
Government
Order
dated
8.12.2008,
wherein the pay scale of Rs.5500-1759000/-, which was applicable for the post
of
Personal
Assistant,
had
been
replaced/substituted in the Pay Band of
Rs.9300-34800/- Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-
w.e.f. 01.1.2006.

5. The State Government issued
Government
order
dated
8.8.2007,
whereby the pay scale on the post of
Personal Assistant (Additional Private
Secretary) as well as Upper Division
Assistant (Review Officer) working in the
establishment
of
the
High
Court,
Allahabad was upgraded from the pay
scale of Rs.5500-9000/- to the pay scale of
Rs.6500-10500/-
with
effect
from
26.6.2007. Thereafter,
by
means
of
Government order dated 22.10.2008 the
pay scale on the post of Personal Assistant
(Additional Private Secretary) as well as
Upper Division Assistant (Review Officer)
of the office of U.P. State Law Officers,
Allahabad/Lucknow,
High
Court,
Allahabad was also upgraded to the pay
scale of Rs.6500-10500/- with effect from
21.6.2007. The State Government had
issued another Government order dated
8.12.2008, wherein the procedure for
fixation of salary has been laid down in
accordance with the recommendations of
the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006
and when an employee is given promotion
on a higher category post from the lower
category post, in that event the fixation of
the salary of such promottee will be made
in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Para-11 of the Government order
dated 8.12.2008.

6.

On
25.03.2010
another
Government Order was issued wherein the
State Government made provision that the
payment of salary to the holder of such
posts of the State Government, which are
carrying the pay scale of Rs.6500-20010500 (Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800
along with the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-),
would be made in accordance with the
Fitment Chart No.1 attached with the said
Government Order, and in such cases, the
posts carrying the pay scale of Rs.6500200-10500 (Pay Band-2 of Rs.930034800/-
along
with
Grade
Pay
of
Rs.4200/-)
have
been
upgraded
subsequently after 01.01.2006 when the
recommendations
of
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission were made applicable. Again
by the Government order dated 29.4.2010
the Grade Pay and the Pay Band of the
incumbents, holding the post of the
Additional Private Secretary (Personal
Assistant) and the Review Officer and the
Review
Officer
(Accounts)
in
the
1828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
establishment
of
the
High
Court,
Allahabad were upgraded to the Grade Pay
of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band of Rs.930034800 with effect from 01.01.2006 by
making the provision in Paragraph No.2 of
the said Government order that the fixation
of the salary would be made in accordance
with the Fitment Chart given in Schedule-I
and
Schedule-II
attached
with
the
Government Order dated 29.04.2010.

7. Since the employees of the U.P.
State Law Officers' Office have been
granted parity with the employees of
Allahabad High Court by the State
Government vide Government Order dated
11.09.1974, another Government Order
dated 16.09.2010 was issued by the State
Government with regard to the Personal
Assistants (Additional Private Secretaries),
Review Officers and Review Officers
(Accounts) of the U.P. State Law Officers'
Office exactly on the same terms and
conditions contained in the aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
29.04.2010
pertaining to the Additional Private
Secretaries (Personal Assistants), Review
Officers
and
the
Review
Officers
(Accounts) of the establishment of this
Court by which the Pay Band and the
Grade Pay of the incumbents holding the
posts of the Review Officer, Personal
Assistant (Additional Private Secretary)
and the Review Officer (Accounts) in the
U.P. State Law Officers' Office was
upgraded to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in
the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/- with
effect from 01.01.2006 by further making
the provision under Paragraph No.2 of the
Government Order dated 16.09.2010 that
the fixation of their salary would be made
in accordance with the Fitment Chart
given in Schedule-I and Schedule-II
attached with the Government Order dated
16.09.2010.

8. It is being claimed that the petitioners
are entitled to be paid their salary in the
upgraded Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- instead of
Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.9300-34800/-. After implementation of the
recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission
w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the classification of various
categories of posts made by Government order
dated 7.10.2003 have also been re-determined
by the State Government on 14.5.2012,
wherein the status and rank of the concerned
posts are determined on the basis of Pay
Scales/Pay Band and Grade Pay, which have
been assigned to the concerned posts. Till the
post of Personal Assistant of the office of U.P.
State Law Officers was carrying the Grade Pay
of Rs.4200/- in the Grade Pay of Rs.930034800/-, they were classified as Group-C
Category posts and immediately after the posts
of the Personal Assistant etc. had been
upgraded by assigning the Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-,
automatically the posts of the Personal
Assistant etc. of the said office became
classified as Group-B category posts.

9. Ultimately, the petitioners were
promoted on the post of Private Secretary
(Grade-I) in the Pay Band of Rs.1560039100/- Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on
29.9.2016. They joined on the post of
Private Secretary (Grade-I) on 30.9.2016
and since then they are continuously
working on the post of Private Secretary
Grade-1. The petitioners are claiming
similar treatment in the matter of payment
of salary at par with the comparable
employees working in the establishment of
this Court.

10. The conditions of service of the
employees of the office of U.P. State Law
Officers' High Court, Allahabad/Lucknow
are regulated by means of Service Rules
known as "The Uttar Pradesh Advocate
1 All. Srikant Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1829
General and Law Officers' Establishment
Service Rules, 2009", which came into
effect from 11.11.2009, as amended from
time to time. Earlier their services were
regulated by means of Rules known as
"The
United
Provinces
Legal
Remembrancer's
and
Law
Officers
Establishments Rules, 1942, as amended
from time to time.

11. Now the bone of contention in the
present dispute is as to what would be the
procedure for fixation of the salary to the
incumbents holding the post of Personal
Assistant, when the status of the post of
Personal Assistant alongwith certain other
posts of the office of State Law Officers,
Allahabad/Lucknow
itself
has
been
upgraded by giving higher Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/- instead of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-
in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/-.

12. In this backdrop, Shri Ramesh
Upadhyay,
learned
Senior
Advocate,
appearing for the petitioners submits that
ever since 11.9.1974 the employees of the
office of the U.P. State Law Officers are
being treated to be similarly situated with
the employees of the High Court holding
corresponding post in pursuance of the
concept of parity as provided in the
Government order dated 11.9.1974 in
respect of their source and method of
recruitment etc. and they are getting the
same pay scales and allowances as is being
paid to the employees of the High Court
holding corresponding posts.

13. It is submitted that by the
Government Orders dated 25.03.2010,
29.04.2010 and 16.09.2010 the incumbents
of the establishment of the High Court,
Allahabad and the U.P. State Law
Officers' Office holding the posts of
Personal Assistant (Additional Private
Secretary), Review Officer and Review
Officer (Accounts) became entitled for the
payment of their salary by making the
payment of Rs.17,140/-, which is the
minimum of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in
the
Pay
Band
of
Rs.9300-34800/-.
However, as per Government Order dated
31.01.2011
it
is
evident
that
the
establishment
of
the
High
Court,
Allahabad
referred
the
matter
for
clarification to the State Government for
payment of the salary by making the
payment at par with the Review Officers
appointed through direct appointment
process in pursuance of the Government
Order dated 29.04.2010 to those Review
Officers of the establishment of the High
Court, Allahabad, who were promoted on
the promotional post of Review Officer on
or after 01.01.2006. Initially the same was
rejected by the State Government by
means of the aforesaid Government Order
dated 31.01.2011 on the same basis on
which the claim of the petitioners has been
rejected by means of the impugned order
dated 25.10.2016 by taking the shelter of
the
same
Paragraph
No.11
of
the
Government Order dated 08.12.2008, but
later on, when the concerned Review
Officers of the establishment of High
Court, Allahabad agitated the matter at
various appropriate levels of the High
Court as well as the State Government,
ultimately, with the consent of the State
Government the same was made available
to them under the order of Hon'ble The
Chief Justice of the High Court dated
02.09.2011 by giving the minimum of the
Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.9300-34800,
i.e.
Rs.17,140/-
with
effect from the date of their promotion on
the post of the Review Officer from the
post of the Assistant Review Officer, in
pursuance of the aforesaid Government
Order dated 29.04.2010.
1830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. It is sought to be contended that a
large
number
of
similarly
situated
employees of the establishment of High
Court, Allahabad have already been
granted the benefits of the pay fixation by
giving them the minimum of Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band of Rs.930034,800/-
in
accordance
with
the
Government order dated 29.4.2019 and
inspite of the parity having been granted
with the staff of the High Court, the said
benefit with effect from the date of their
promotion on the post of the Personal
Assistant (Additional Private Secretary)
was not made available to them even after
the issuance of the aforesaid Government
Order dated 16.09.2010. The petitioner
no.2 made an application under the Right
To
Information
Act,
2005
dated
18.11.2011. Consequently, the Central
Public Information Officer, High Court,
Allahabad
provided
the
following
information to him by his letter No.
9381/R.T.I./751/2011/AHC,
dated
05.01.2012: -

"With
reference
to
your
application dated 18/11/2011 in which you
have sought following information under
Right to Information Act, 2005, please
find enclosed herewith the following
information: -

Information regarding officials
working in this Hon'ble Court namely Sri
Santosh Kumar (Emp.No.7305), Akhil
Kumar
Kureel
(Emp.No.7306)
and
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra (Emp.No.7327) as
Review Officers, High Court, Allahabad,
are as under:

1.
Attested
copies
of
the
Appointment and Promotion Letter.

2. Attested copies of all pages of
Service Book with posting.

3.
Attested
copies
of
Pay
Fixation Chart after promotion from the
post of Assistant Review Officer to
Review Officer.

4. Attested copies of Option
Form of Pay Fixation.

Attested copies of the G.O. and letter from
which the option was opted to fix the pay."

15. It is contended that after
receiving the aforementioned details the
petitioners
have
also
made
detailed
representation dated 25.7.2016 to the
competent authority and requested for
fixation of pay in accordance with the
provisions of Fitment Chart as per
Government orders dated 25.3.2010 and
16.9.2010 by fixing their salary at the
minimum stage of Rs.17,140/- w.e.f.
10.7.2006 in the case of the petitioner
nos.2 to 7 (the date on which they joined
on
the
promoted
post
of
Personal
Assistant)
and
with
effect
from
15/16.3.2007 in the case of the petitioner
no.1 (the date on which he joined on the
promoted post of Personal Assistant). The
aforesaid representation was forwarded by
learned Advocate General, U.P to the State
Government on 31.7.2016/3.8.2016 with
categorical term that the grievance of the
petitioners is genuine and the same is
required to be considered at the end of the
State Government but in most arbitrary
manner by the impugned order dated
25.10.2016 the respondents have denied
the claim set up by the petitioners by
holding that the petitioners were appointed
after 1.1.2006 or promoted after the said
date. Consequently, they are entitled only
for the payment of the salary, which was
applicable without upgradation of the post
and for which the reliance has been placed
on paragraph no.11 of the Government
order dated 8.12.2008.

16. It is submitted that earlier the
Association of the Private Secretaries
1 All. Srikant Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1831
working in the office of the U.P. State Law
Officers
preferred
Civil
Misc.
Writ
Petition No.17885 of 1996 claiming that
they were being paid salary in the scale of
Rs.2000-3200
while
the
Private
Secretaries working in the establishment
of the High Court were getting the salary
in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 and since
both the establishments have to be treated
at par in accordance with the decision of
the State Government itself, the same pay
scale be made applicable to them. The
aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a
Division
Bench
of
this
Court
on
29.7.1998, with following observations:-

"From the year 1988 all the
employees,
whether
of
the
State
Government or of the High Court, are
getting the same pay scale as is admissible
to the corresponding posts of the Central
Government and the said decision was
taken with effect from 1.1.1986, according
to the report of Equivalence Committee,
U.P.

In view of the fact that ever
since the issuance of the Government
order dated 11.9.1974 the employees
working in the High Court as well as the
employees working in the office of the
U.P. State Law Officers were being treated
similarly in the matter of post and pay
scale etc., we are of the view that the
petitioners are also entitled to the same
pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 as carrying on
the same work and possess the same
qualification. The method of recruit is also
similar. The non-payment of the same
salary to the petitioners is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India as well as assigned to
Article 39(D) of the Constitution. It is
directed to the respondents to fix the salary
of the Private Secretaries working in the
office of the U.P. State Law Officers,
Allahabad/Lucknow in the revised pay
scale of Rs.3000-4500 from the date of
filing of this writ petition. We have
refrained ourselves from granting the same
pay scale to the petitioners with effect
from 1.1.1986 because it will cost a great
burden on the Government.

With the aforesaid direction the
writ petition is allowed."

17. It is submitted that the aforesaid
judgment was subjected to challenge
before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2732 of 1999 (State of Uttar
Pradesh
vs.
Private
Secretaries
Brotherhood and ors) and the same was
dismissed on 28.11.2007. Again, the State
of Uttar Pradesh preferred a Review
Petition (C) No.877 of 2008 in the said
Civil Appeal and the same was also
dismissed on 23.7.2008. The judgment
inter parties i.e. State and the Private
Secretaries working in the office of the
U.P. State Law Officers had become final.
The employees working in the Office of
U.P. State Law Officers at Allahabad as
well as at Lucknow are entitled to be
treated similarly vis-a-vis the employees
working in the establishment of this Court
on the corresponding posts as held by a
Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.17885 of 1996 and affirmed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2732 of 1999.

18. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay
Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Devesh
Vikram, learned Standing Counsel, has
vehemently placed reliance and reiterated
the averments made in the counter
affidavit dated 25.8.2017 filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2 sworn by Arun
Kumar
Rai,
Under
Secretary,
Law
Department, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow,
1832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein it has been stated that so far as the
employees of the State Government, who
were appointed on any post on 1.1.2006 or
after 1.1.2006, is concerned, the right of
exercising the option in the matter, given
in the paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the
counter affidavit, is not available to them.
The employees of the said category will be
entitled to receive their salary only in the
revised pay structure, which was made
effective with effect from 01.1.2006 by
means of the Government order dated
8.12.2008. From the documents brought
on record in the shape of annexures filed
alongwith the present writ petition, it is
evident that the petitioners were not in the
employment of the State Government at
the relevant date i.e. 01.1.2006 and
thereafter, the pay of the petitioners was
not to be revised according to the
Government order dated 8.12.2008, rather
the payment of salary of the petitioners
was to be made in the Pay Band/Grade Pay
as mentioned in the revised pay structure,
which was made effective from 01.1.2006
by the Government order dated 8.12.2008
treating them to have been appointed on
the post carrying the Pay Band/Grade Pay
as against the post of the concerned
category. Admittedly, the petitioners came
in
the
government
service
on
05.1.2006/6.1.2006.

19. It is submitted that the petitioners
were promoted to the post of Personal
Assistant on 10.7.2006. The petitioner
no.1 had assumed the charge of the post of
Personal Assistant after his promotion on
15.3.2007. So far as the petitioners are
concerned, they were appointed after
01.1.2006
and
thereafter
they
were
promoted on the post of Personal Assistant
in the month of July, 2006/March, 2007.
The fixation of their pay is to be made
according to the procedures laid down in
paragraph no.11 of the Government order
dated
8.12.2008,
wherein
specific
provision has been made by the State
Government for fixation of the pay of such
categories of employees. Para-11 of the
Government
order
dated
8.12.2008
specifically deals with the matter of pay
fixation of those employees, who had been
given promotion in the revised pay
structure i.e., after the relevant cut-off date
1.1.2006. The fixation of pay of the
petitioners after promotion on the post of
Personal Assistant was to be made strictly
in accordance with the procedure laid
down in para-11 of the Government order
dated 8.12.2008. The petitioners cannot be
allowed to continue to draw the pay on the
post of Stenographer in the un-revised pay
scale. They are not entitled to claim that
they should be allowed to continue to draw
their pay on the post of Stenographer in
the unrevised pay scale. Similarly, the
petitioners are also not entitled to be given
the option of making the choice that the
fixation of the pay be made with regard to
them in the revised pay structure only after
their
promotion
from
the
post
of
Stenographer to the post of Personal
Assistant.

20. It has been submitted that the
Grade Pay of the post of the Additional
Private Secretary of the office of U.P.
State
Law
Officers,
High
Court,
Allahabad/Lucknow was upgraded with
effect from 01.1.2006. The petitioners
were promoted on the post of Personal
Assistant
in
the
month
of
July,
2006/March, 2007 and therefore, they are
entitled for the benefit of the upgraded
Grade Pay of Personal Assistant by
making the fixation of their salary on the
said post in accordance with the provisions
made in Para-11 of the Government order
dated 8.12.2008. In accordance with the
1 All. Srikant Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1833
provision of Para no.1 of the Government
order dated 8.12.2008 the right to exercise
the option was available only to those
employees, who were working in the
establishment of the High Court as on
01.01.2006. If any benefit of right to
exercise the option has been provided to
any employee of the establishment of the
High Court, who came into service of the
establishment of the High Court after
01.01.2006, the same is contrary to the
provisions
of
Para
no.11
of
the
Government order dated 8.12.2008.

21. By the Government order dated
24.12.2009 a provision has been made for
fixation of the pay regarding those posts
wherein the pay scales were upgraded after
01.1.2006 and by the Government order
dated 29.6.2019 the provision has been
made for providing opportunity to fill up
the revised option form for the said
category of posts. The provisions of the
Government orders dated 24.12.2009 and
29.6.2010 are not applicable to those
posts, wherein the pay scales were
upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The post of
Additional Private Secretary has been
upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and as such, the
provision of the said Government orders
are not applicable to the petitioners.
According to the provisions of the
Government order dated 29.6.2010 they
were not entitled to be allowed to fill up
the revised option form. The petitioners
were given appointment for the first time
after 01.01.2006, therefore, they cannot be
permitted to avail the opportunity to
exercise the option in the revised pay
structure. It has been submitted that the
grant of parity to the petitioners does not
mean that if any benefit has been given to
the employees of the High Court in a
wrongful
manner,
contrary
to
the
provisions of the relevant rules, the same
should also be made available to the
petitioners and the procedure followed in
the matter of concerned Review Officers
of the High Court, cannot be followed in
the matter of the petitioners and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

22. The Court has proceeded to
examine the record in question and also
perused the documents provided by the
High Court under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 and finds that in the Office
Order No.2556 dated 09.07.2008 issued by
the establishment of this Court, which
consists of 126 persons, the names of
Santosh Kumar and Akhil Kumar Kureel
find place at Sl. No.114 and 117
respectively by which they were for the
first time appointed on the post of the
Assistant
Review
Officer
in
the
establishment
of
the
High
Court,
Allahabad, i.e. much after 01.01.2006.
Similarly, from the Office Order No.2302
dated 09.06.2009 it is evident that Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra was allowed to join on the
post of the Assistant Review Officer in the
establishment of this Court. Thereafter, by
the
Office
Order
No.6542
dated
27.11.2010 the Assistant Review Officers
namely Santosh Kumar and Akhil Kumar
Kureel, were promoted on the posts of
Review Officer in the establishment of this
Court and their names find place at Sl. No.
63 and 67, respectively. Similarly, Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra was also promoted from the
post of Assistant Review Officer to the
post of Review Officer by Office Order
No.9594 dated 04.03.2011 in which his
name has been mentioned at Sl. No. 3 in
Column-B of the same.

23. From the service books of
Santosh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
and Akhil Kumar Kureel, which have been
brought on record as Annexure Nos. 29-A,
1834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29-B and 29-C to the writ petition, it is
evident that in pursuance of the order of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court,
Allahabad dated 02.09.2011, the salary of
the Review Officers of the establishment
of the High Court, Allahabad namely
Santosh Kumar, Akhil Kumar Kureel and
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, after assuming the
charge of the post of Review Officer has
been fixed at Rs.17,140/- which is the
minimum of the Pay Band of Rs.930034800/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- (i.e.
minimum in the Pay Band Rs.12540 +
Grade Pay of Rs.4600 = 17140/-).
Similarly, from the perusal of the revised
Pay Fixation of the Review Officers of
establishment of the Court, Santosh
Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and Akhil
Kumar Kureel, it is evident that on
assuming the charge of the post of Review
Officer in the establishment of this Court
the salary of Santosh Kumar, Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra and Akhil Kumar Kureel
has been fixed at Rs.17,140/- which is the
minimum of the Pay Band of Rs. 930034800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- (i.e.
minimum in the Pay Band of Rs. 12540/-
+ Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- =17,140/-). From
the perusal of Annexure Nos. 31-A, 31-B
and 31-C of the writ petition, which are
the copy of the Revised Option Form of
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Akhil Kumar
Kureel and Santosh Kumar, Review
Officers of this Court, it is evident that in
compliance of order of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice dated 02.09.2011 they opted their
revised option in view of the 6th Pay
Commission from the respective date of
their promotion on the post of Review
Officer.

24. Annexure No.32 of the writ
petition, which is part of the information
provided to the petitioner no. 2 under the
Right to Information Act, 2005, clearly
shows that by its own letter dated
24.08.2011 the State Government had
communicated its decision to the Registrar
General of this Court along with the other
Government Orders dated 29.06.2010 and
24.12.2009 that the salary of the concerned
Review Officers of the High Court may be
fixed and paid to them on the basis of
which the concerned Review Officers have
already been provided the minimum of the
Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band of
Rs.9300-34800/-,
i.e.
Rs.17,140/-.
Similarly, from the minutes of the
proceedings and deliberations etc. at
various
stages
in
between
the
establishment of the High Court and the
concerned
departments
of
the
State
Government, from time to time it is
evident that whatever action has been
taken in the establishment of the High
Court for fixation of the salary of the
concerned
Review
Officers
of
the
establishment of High Court at Rs.17,140/-
, which is the minimum of the Grade Pay
of Rs. 4600/- in the Pay Band of Rs. 930034800/-, the same is based upon the order
of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court,
Allahabad dated 02.09.2011 and the order
of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated
02.09.2011 is based upon the own decision
of the State Government contained in the
relevant Government Orders issued from
time to time, by the State Government
itself.

25. The present writ petition has
been filed for similar treatment in the
matter of payment of salary to the
petitioners at par with the comparable
employees working in the establishment of
this Court. The employees and officers
working in the office of the U.P. State Law
Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow under the
control of Advocate General, U.P., High
Court, Allahabad, have been granted parity
1 All. Srikant Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1835
by the State Government in the matter of
pay
scales,
allowances
and
other
conditions of service with the employees
and officers working in the establishment
of this Court, Allahabad by means of
Government Order dated 11.09.1974.
Similarly, the employees and officers
working in the establishment of High
Court, Allahabad have been granted parity
with the employees and officers of the
U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow by means of the
Government Order dated 20.03.1968.

26. The issue of grant of the parity to the
employees of the U.P. State Law Officers'
Office by the Government Order dated
11.09.1974 with the employees and officers of
the High Court, Allahabad, has already been
settled by the Division Bench Judgment of this
Court dated 29th July, 1998 passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 17885 of 1996
(Private Secretaries Brotherhood & others
vs. The State of U.P. & The Advocate
General, U.P.), wherein the Division Bench,
after considering the Government Orders
issued from time to time, as well as the
judgments of this Court passed in earlier writ
petitions, recorded a categorical finding that
the employees working in the office of U.P.
State Law Officers both at Allahabad as well
as at Lucknow, are entitled to be treated
similarly with the employees working in this
Court on the corresponding post. This
judgment of the Division Bench was subjected
to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
by way of Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 1999,
which was dismissed vide judgment dated
28th November, 2007. The review application
filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being
Review Petition (C) No. 877 of 2008 was also
dismissed vide order dated 23rd July, 2008.

27. From the perusal of the aforesaid
judgment dated 29.07.1998 it is also
evident that earlier the Division Bench of
this Court at Lucknow while allowing
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 254 of 1984
filed by the State Law Officers' Ministerial
Staff
Association,
Allahabad/Lucknow
vide judgment and order dated 31.03.1986
had held that the Government Order dated
11.09.1974 was issued to give effect to the
provisions of Article 39 (d) read with
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Similarly, while allowing Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 21815 of 1987
(State
Law
Officers'
Ministerial
Officers' Association and others vs. the
State of U.P. and others) on 26.02.1988
the Division Bench of this Court held that
the employees of the High Court,
Allahabad and the employees of the U.P.
State Law Officers' Office are the same.
Both the said judgment and orders dated
31.03.1986 and 26.02.1988 have already
been
attained
finality
as
the
State
Government had decided not to file any
Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the
Supreme Court against the same.

28. The aforesaid Division Bench
judgment dated 29.7.1998 passed in
Private Secretaries Brotherhood's case
(supra) was followed by this Court in Writ
A No.40762 of 1996 (Personal Assistants
Brotherhood, Office of U.P. State and
another vs. State of UP and others) and
learned Single Judge had proceeded to
allow the writ petition on 23.5.2011 with
following observations:-

"From the aforesaid it is clear
that the Chief Secretary was asked to file
an affidavit justifying the non-payment of
salary to the petitioners at par with
Personal
Assistants
working
in
the
establishment of this High Court with
effect from the date of the institution of the
writ proceedings. The Court found that
such parity in fact has been provided w.e.f.
1836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.06.2007. A pointed query was made as
to what has happened between the date of
filing of the writ petition and 21.06.2007
on the basis whereof such parity could be
refused from the date as has been prayed
in this petition.

Today an affidavit has been filed
by the Chief Secretary and it has been
stated that in respect of all the three issues
so framed i.e. a, b and c, there has been no
change between 16.12.1996 to 21.06.2007.
Except for reiterating what has been stated
earlier, no fresh material has been brought
on record which can lead to a conclusion
that the State is justified in not granting the
parity in the pay scale from the date the
writ petition was filed i.e. 16.12.1996 as
has been done in the case of Private
Secretaries Brotherhood & others vs. The
State of U.P. & The Advocate General,
U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17885
of 1996).

Since there is absolutely no
justification forthcoming from the State to
deny such parity from the date aforesaid
and it being an admitted position that the
present petitioners have been granted the
said parity from 31.07.2007, this Court
finds little or no justification to refuse such
parity to the petitioners from the date of
the institution of this writ petition like in
the
case
of
Private
Secretaries
Brotherhood & others (Supra) i.e. from
16.12.1998.

Accordingly, the present writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to grant the pay-scale to the
members of petitioners' brotherhood at par
with those working on the similar posts in
the establishment of the High Court,
Allahabad, w.e.f. 16.12.1996. Arrears in
that regard may be released within three
months from the date a certified copy of
this order is filed before the authority
concerned."

29. The State of Uttar Pradesh had
assailed the said judgment passed by
learned Single Judge by preferring Special
Appeal No.1298 of 2011 (State of UP and
another
vs.
Personal
Assistants
Brotherhood, Office of U.P. & another)
and a Division Bench of this Court had
proceeded dispose of the Special Appeal
on 14.8.2018 with following directions:-