S K SAXENA Vs. GOVERNOR OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge of the High court held that the appellant, a lecturer in the College, who was admittedlysenior to respondent 5, in the same cadre (lecturers) , did not become junior to the latter upon the salary of both of them being fixed in the higher pay grade at Rs. 350. 00 p. m. and that the fact that respondent 5 was older than him in age was of no consequence. The view is taken that the appellant's seniority vis-a-vis respondent 5 did not become topsy-turvy and their inter se seniority continued to operate notwithstanding upgradation, in the new grade with effect from 5/01/1965.- The division bench has reversed the learned Single Judge and held that one who was junior till then (respondent 5) became senior overnight by virtue of upgradation. The erstwhile senior (appellant) who is adjudged to be junior vis-a-vis erstwhile junior (respondent 5) has appealed to this court and prayed for restoration of the order of the learned Single Judge, and his seniority.

(2.) The question before the court is as regards the inter se seniority between the appellant on the one hand and respondent 5 on the other in the cadre of lecturers in the new grade of Rs. 310. 00 in the D. S. College at Aligarh. Both of them were holding the post of lecturer in the college in the grade of Rs 250-15-400-EB-20-500. Admittedly the appellant was senior having regard to his length of service in the College in the cadre of lecturers. On 5/01/1965, the secretary of the College informed the appellant as also respondent 5 that the Managing Committee had fixed their salary in the new grade of Rs. 310. 00 with effect from 1/08/1964. Some two years later respondent 5 contended that he was entitled to be treated as senior to the appellant with effect from 5/01/1965, on which date the appellant as also respondent 5 were fixed in the higher scale of pay at Rs. 310. 00. The Managing Committee repelled this contention and decided that the appellant who was admittedly senior to respondent 5 continued to be senior and that he did not become junior merely because the pay scale of Rs. 250-5 00 was upgraded and both of them were fixed in the same cadre of lecturers at Rs 3.10 by virtue of the order dated 5/01/1965. This decision was confirmed by the Vice-Chancellor. Respondent 5 carried the matter to the Chancellor of the University. The Chancellor confirmed the view taken by the Managing Committee and the Vice-Chancellor. Not deterred by these decisions respondent 5 approached the High court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High court took the same view and dismissed the writ petition. Having failed before the Managing Committee, the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor, and the learned Single Judge of the high court respondent 5 carried the matter by way of a special appeal to a division bench of the High court. The division bench took a different view from the view taken by the learned Single Judge and came to the conclusion that having regard to Statute 7 (B) of Ch. XVIII respondent 5 was entitled to be treated as senior witheffect from the date of upgradation i. e. 5/01/1965 because respondent 5 was older in age than the appellant. S. 7 (B) reads thus: