STATE OF U.P. Vs. AISHWARYA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed on the post of Officer on Special Duty, maybe on compassionate ground. However, she was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.6500.0010,500/- which was lower than the pay-scale required to be paid to Officer on Special Duty.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as such the respondent was appointed on supernumerary post and even she could not have been appointed on the post of Officer on Special Duty on compassionate appointment as the said post was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission. The aforesaid submission has no substance at all. Once a person is appointed on a particular post, maybe on compassionate ground, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the same post.

(3.) It is the petitioner – State which appointed the respondent on compassionate ground on the post of Officer on Special Duty. Thereafter, it is not open for the State to contend that the respondent could not have been appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Officer on Special Duty as the same was required to be filled by the Public Service Commission. There cannot be two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis. The moment a person is appointed on a particular post, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the very post, even if the appointment is on compassionate ground. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even in the case of similarly situated employees, the similar benefit was granted.