DR. BALBIR SINGH BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to the appellants by the State of Uttarakhand. The said benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand. The narrow question is whether the benefits can be recovered from the appellants who have superannuated.

(2.) Few factual aspects need consideration. The undivided Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order dtd. 16/6/1988 by which the appellants were appointed on an ad hoc basis in the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Service Cadre. The appointments were expressly made for a period of one year or till the State Public Service Commission provides the duly selected candidates. A decision dtd. 5/2/1998 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh provided that any medical officer working on an ad hoc basis shall be considered for regularisation upon completing continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years. However, it was clarified that the benefit of personal payment should be approved only after their regularisation in service. It was specifically made clear that if any medical officer has completed 8 years of continuous service but has not been regularised, the benefit of the personal pay band will be admissible only after he is regularised. On 2/12/2000, a decision was made by the government that officers/employees who completed continuous and satisfactory service of 8 years in the same post on or after 1/1/1996 shall be provided a salary increment in the revised pay band. It was also decided that the officers who have been granted the aforesaid benefit and who have completed continuous and satisfactory service of 6 years from the date of getting the benefit of selection grade to a total of 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service shall be approved on the next pay-band or promotional post on a personal basis. It was clarified that the benefit be available to those who have been regularised on the concerned post.

(3.) The first respondent, by an office memorandum dtd. 27/1/2006, regularised the appellants' employment. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court. The grievance was regarding the non-grant of the promotional pay scale. The writ petitions were disposed of by the order dtd. 3/1/2011, directing the State Government to consider their claim for the grant of a promotional pay scale. On 8/3/2011, the first respondent " " the State Government, granted approval for applying a new ACP (Assured Career Progression Scheme) in the revised pay structure from 1/1/2006 for the State Government employees. On 4/8/2011, the Chief Secretary of the State Government issued a communication to the Director General of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, which reads thus: