Tribhuvan Tyagi @ Tribhuvan and Ors v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Affairs and Ors

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13836 of 2021 Petitioner :- Tribhuvan Tyagi @ Tribhuvan And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Affairs And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. along with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14086 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Tiwari And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Home Affairs And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. along with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14471 of 2021 Petitioner :- Narayan Singh Pno No. 020440103 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. along with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14268 of 2021 Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Shukla Pno No.860440552 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Home And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. along with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14378 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vivek Mishra And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home. Affairs And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Durgesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶2The reliefs sought in all these writ petitions are identical and thus, these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

¶3All these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing of the impugned Government Orders dated 16.03.2021 &

09.06.2021 passed by opposite party no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Home Affairs/ Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow rejecting the claim of the petitioners for providing the salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and denied the parity of the judgment and order dated 01.04.2019 passed in W.P. No. 4127 (S/S) of 2007 (Satya Prakash Sharma and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) where also the petitioners were working as Pump Attendant/Operators and Switch Board Attendant as the present petitioners are working in the Police Department and for issuing directions to the opposite parties to re-consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- revised from time to time, as recommended in para 26(4)(ka) in the G.O. dated

08.10.2002.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are working on the post of Tube well Operator/Pump Operator/Switch Board Attendants and they are entitled for the pay scale of Rs 4000-6000/- as per the para 26(4)(ka) in the G.O. dated 08.10.2002 in which it has been provided that higher pay-scale would be admissible only in case, the qualifications required for a particular post to be filled in by direct recruitment is High School with I.T.I. Certificate. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are having qualification of High School with I.T.I. Certificate and thereafter they have been appointed on the abovementioned posts.

¶5It is further submitted that the identical controversy had come up before this Court when the order of recovery was issued against the similarly situated persons for recovery of excess salary. They had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 4127 (S/S) of 2007. The said writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 01.04.2019. Against the said order, a Special Appeal was preferred by the State which was also dismissed by judgment dated 30.08.2019 against which a Special Leave to Appeal no. 26389 of 2019 was preferred by the State which was also dismissed on

18.11.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶6On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not acceptable in view of the fact that even if there were no service regulations pertaining to the post which were held by the petitioners, the provisions of U.P. Police Group D Employees Service Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2009') would be applicable in which again there is no requirement of the qualification of High School with I.T.I. Certificate with regard to the post held by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the pay scale has been provided under the Rules, so the G.O. dated 08.10.2002 is not applicable in the case of the petitioners.

¶7It is further submitted that the parity claimed by the petitioners from the judgment in the case of Satya Prakash Sharma and Ors. (supra) is not applicable in the present case for the reason as in that judgment, Sub Rule 5 of Rule 10 of the Group D Employees Service (U.P.) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules, 1985') was under consideration. Here the services of the petitioners are governed by the Rules, 2009 and Rule 9(3) is attracted in the present writ petitions.

¶8After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the relevant Rules, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the petitioners have been appointed on the technical post of Tube well Operators/Pump Operators/Switch Board Attendants and the qualification which is required as per the advertisements dated 11.07.2013, 15.01.2014 &

27.01.2004 is quoted in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the counter afÏdavit, which are reproduced hereinbelow:- "4. .......The following eligibilities were prescribed in the advertisement dated 11.07.2013:- "1. अभ्यरቕኍ नने कम सने कम ककቌኋ 5 ककी पररीकቌኋ उतरीरर ककी हहो।

¶2कहोई व्यकሹኌ चततुरर शनेररी कने ककसरी पद पर कनयतुकሹኌ कने ललिए तभरी पቌኋ्ቔ हहोगቌኋ जब उसने कविभቌኋगरीय एविवं पतुललिस बलि ककी आविश्यकतቌኋ कने दृकቖኌगत उस पद कने कቌኋयर कቌኋ अपनेककत जቌኋन एविवं समतुकचत अनतुभवि हहो। 3-कहोई व्यकሹኌ सቌኋइक्लिहोस्टቌኋईलि आपरनेटर कने रूप मम यቌኋ ककसरी अन्य पद पर लजसकने ललिए तकनरीकक जቌኋन अपनेककत हहो, कनयतुकሹኌ कने ललिए पቌኋ्ቔ नहीሻ हहोगቌኋ, जब तक कक उसने अपनेककत तकनरीकक जቌኋन और कविकशिቖኌ कቌኋयर कवे ‌सम् बन् ध‌मे‌समुवचत‌अनुभवि ‌न‌हको । 4- सवेि ाኋ ‌मे‌पቚ त् यवेक‌शवेणमी ‌कवे ‌पद‌पर‌यह‌आवि श् यक‌ह‌है वक‌अ?् यथीኍ ‌साኋ ईवकलि ‌चलि ाኋ नाኋ ‌जाኋ नताኋ ‌हको , यह‌शि तर‌ रमवहलि ाኋ ‌अ?् यिथयोሱ ‌पर‌लि ाኋ गलू‌न‌हको गमी ।‌ 5- अन् य‌बाኋ तोሱ ‌कवे ‌समाኋ न‌हको नवे‌पर‌ऐसवे‌अ?् यिथरयोሱ ‌कको ‌सवेि ाኋ ‌मे‌वकसमी ‌पद‌पर‌समी धमी ‌भतीኍ ‌कवे ‌माኋ मलि वे‌मे‌ अिधमाኋ न‌वदयाኋ ‌जाኋ यवेगाኋ , िजससवे‌पቚ ाኋ दवे शि क‌सवेनाኋ ‌मे‌दको ‌वि षर‌की‌अवि िध‌तक‌सवेि ाኋ ‌की‌हको ।‌

5. .......The following eligibilities were prescribed in the advertisement dated 15.01.2014:-

1.oअ?् यथीኍ ‌नवे‌कम‌सवे‌कम‌ककाኋ ‌5 की‌परमी काኋ ‌उतमी णर‌की‌हको ।

2. कको ई‌व् यवकኌ ‌चतुथर‌शवेणमी ‌कवे ‌वकसमी ‌पद‌पर‌वनयवु कኌ ‌कवे ‌िलि ए‌तभमी ‌पाኋ तቔ ‌हको गाኋ ‌जब‌उसवे‌ववि भाኋ गमी य‌एवि नं‌ रपुिलि स‌बलि ‌की‌आवि श् यकताኋ ‌कवे ‌दृ वषኌ गत‌उस‌पद‌कवे ‌काኋ य‌काኋ ‌अपवे कत‌?ाኋ न‌एवि नं‌समुवचत‌अनुभवि ‌हको । 3- कको ई‌व् यवकኌ ‌साኋ इक् लि को स् टाኋ ईलि ‌आपरटवे र‌कवे ‌रू प‌मे‌याኋ ‌वकसमी ‌अन् य‌पद‌पर‌िजसकवे ‌िलि ए‌तकनमी वक‌?ाኋ न‌ रअपवे कत‌हको , वनयवु कኌ ‌कवे ‌िलि ए‌पाኋ तቔ ‌नहळሻ ‌हको गाኋ , जब‌तक‌वक‌उसवे‌अपवे कत‌तकनमी वक‌?ाኋ न‌और‌ववि वशि षኌ ‌काኋ य कवे ‌सम् बन् ध‌मे‌समुवचत‌अनुभवि ‌न‌हको । 4- सवेि ाኋ ‌मे‌पቚ त् यवेक‌शवेणमी ‌कवे ‌पद‌पर‌यह‌आवि श् यक‌ह‌है वक‌अ?् यथीኍ ‌साኋ ईवकलि ‌चलि ाኋ नाኋ ‌जाኋ नताኋ ‌हको , यह‌शि तर‌ मवहलि ाኋ ‌अ?् यिथरयोሱ ‌पर‌लि ाኋ गलू‌न‌हको गमी ।‌ 5- अन् य‌बाኋ तोሱ ‌कवे ‌समाኋ न‌हको नवे‌पर‌ऐसवे‌अ?् यिथरयोሱ ‌कको ‌सवेि ाኋ ‌मे‌वकसमी ‌पद‌पर‌समी धमी ‌भतीኍ ‌कवे ‌माኋ मलि वे‌मे‌ अिधमाኋ न‌वदयाኋ ‌जाኋ यवेगाኋ , िजससवे‌पቚ ाኋ दवे शि क‌सवेनाኋ ‌मे‌दको ‌वि षर‌की‌अवि िध‌तक‌सवेि ाኋ ‌की‌हको ।‌

6. That petitioner No. 3 Manjeet Singh Ranaa has been appointed on the post of Switch Board Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-60-3150-65-3540 under the U.P. Police Group-D Employee Service Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules, 1985) by the order dated

09.01.2006 issued by the 23th Battalion PAC, Moradabad.

7. .......The following eligibilities were prescribed in the advertisement dated 27.01.2004:- र1- अ?् यथीኍ ‌काኋ ‌ओ 0पमी 0कवे ‌पद‌कवे ‌िलि यवे‌ककाኋ ‌ 5 उतमी ण‌हको नाኋ ‌आवि श् यक‌ह।है ‌शि वेष‌पदको ‌कवे ‌िलि ए‌कको ई शि हैवकक‌यको ?् यताኋ ‌अपवे कत‌नहळሻ ‌हहै, वकन् तु‌उस‌व् यवकኌ गत‌की‌अिधमाኋ वनताኋ ‌दमी ‌जाኋ यवेगाኋ ‌जको ‌वशि वकत‌हको ‌याኋ ‌कम े रसवे‌कम‌दवेि नाኋ गरमी ‌िलि वप‌म‌वहन् दमी ‌िलि ख‌और‌पढ़‌सकताኋ ‌हको ।‌उपरको कኌ ‌सभमी ‌पद‌कवे ‌अ?् यिथयोሱ ‌कवे ‌िलि ए साኋ ईवकलि ‌ चलि ाኋ नवे‌ काኋ ‌ ?ाኋ न ‌ हको नाኋ ‌ आवि श् यक ‌ ह।है 2- आवि वेदकोሱ ‌कको ‌यह‌भमी ‌सलूवचत‌वकयाኋ ‌जाኋ ताኋ ‌ह‌है वक‌भतीኍ ‌करतवे‌समय‌साኋ काኋ त् काኋ र‌परमी काኋ ‌मे‌ऐसवे‌हमी अ?् यिथरयोሱ ‌कको ‌हमी ‌सिम् मिलि त‌वकयाኋ ‌जाኋ यवेगाኋ ‌जको ‌ववि वनवदरषኌ ‌पद‌कवे ‌काኋ य?‌कको ‌सम् पाኋ वदत‌करनवे‌मेनं वनपुण/सकम‌हको ।‌उदाኋ हरण‌कु क/कहाኋ र, बढ़ई, पम् प‌आपरटवे र, धको बमी , मको चमी , नाኋ ई‌कवे ‌काኋ यर‌मे‌पाኋ रगनं त‌हको , इसकी‌पुवषኌ ‌मे‌पቚ ाኋ प ‌पቚ वशि कण‌एवि नं‌अनुभवि ‌काኋ ‌पቚ माኋ ण-पतቔ ‌आवि वेदन‌कवे ‌साኋ थ‌अवि श् य‌हमी ‌सनंलि गሿ ‌कर।े ‌"

9. Condition no. 3 in the advertisements dated 11.07.2013 & 15.01.2014 is the qualifi cation prescribed under Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2009, for convenience Rule 9(3) is quoted hereunder:- "(3)   No   person   shall   be   eligible   for   appointment   as   a   cyclostyle operator or any other post requiring technical knowledge unless he is found to possess the requisite technical knowledge and has good experience pertaining to the particular job."

¶10Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2009 provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment on any post requiring technical knowledge unless he is found to possess the requisite technical knowledge and in the judgment it has been held that the post of Tube Well Operator/Pump Operator/Switch Board Attendants are technical in nature.

¶11Clause III of the advertisement, which is Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2009 is in verbatim same as Rule 5(10) of the Rules, 1985 and for convenience, Rule 5 (10) of 1985 is quoted hereinbelow:- "No person shall be eligible for appointment as a cyclostyle operator or any other post requiring technical knowledge unless he is found to possess the requisite technical knowledge and has good experience pertaining to the particular job."

¶12It is an admitted case between the parties that till date no Rules have been framed regarding or relating to minimum educational qualification for Group D post and the said lacuna was filled by the State Government by issuing G.O. dated 08.10.2002 where Clause 26(4)(ka) of the Government Order provides that the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- would be admissible for such post which are to be filled up either by direct recruitment with the basic educational qualification of High School with I.T.I. certificate or a certificate in the relevant field with two years experience from an institution recognized by the Government.

¶13In absence of any service Rules pertaining to the posts of Tube Well Operator/Pump Operator/Switch Board Attendants, the General Rules of the Rules of 2009 would thus, be applicable to the petitioners and Rule 9(3) provides for requirement of technical knowledge as a requisite qualification for holding a particular post.

¶14In the impugned order as well as in the counter afÏdavit, it has neither been disputed nor denied that post on which the petitioners are working as mentioned above are technical in nature hence merely discussing the different Rules in the judgment passed in the case of Satya Prakas Sharma (supra) does not make any difference as Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2009, which governs the services of the petitioners is pari-materia to Rule 5(10) of the Rules, 1985, which were governing the services of the petitioners of the writ petition in the case of Satya Prakash Sharma (supra) and the judgment in that writ petition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶15Under these circumstances, as discussed above, the impugned Government Orders dated 16.03.2021 &

09.06.2021 passed by opposite party no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Home Affairs/ Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow are not legally sustainable and are hereby quashed.

¶16Writ petitions are allowed.

¶17The writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to pay the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as revised from time to time to the petitioner with immediate effect alongwith arrears of difference of salary from the date of appointment. Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Nitesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench