STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. C L AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil appeals arise upon identical facts and may be disposed of by a common judgment. The principal judgment under appeal is that of a Full Bench of the High Court at Allahabad, in Civil Appeal No. 10568 of 1996. The Full Bench judgment was followed by a Division Bench of the High Court and that order is impugned in Civil Appeal No. 10596 of 1996.

(2.) The facts that we state relate to Civil Appeal No. 10568 of 1996. The first respondent was appointed a Lower Division Assistant in the High Court at Allahabad on 1st June, 1957. He was given, on the orders of the Chief Justice in office at the relevant time, one premature (or advance) increment in the year 1989, two premature increments in the year 1990 and one premature increment in the year 1991. He retired from service on 31st July, 1994. For the purposes of calculating his pensionary benefits, the appellants did not take into account these premature increments. They acted upon the basis of a letter dated 27th June, 1992, which had been addressed by the Joint Secretary of the appellant-State to the Registrar of the High Court in respect of a premature increment that had been granted to one Nazim Hussain, a Section Officer of the High Court, who had then retired. The letter stated, "As the power to create the post is vested with the Governor, so under Fundamental Rule 27 it is mandatory for his Excellency the Governor to exercise aforesaid powers. There is similar provision in Art. 229 of the Constitution and Allahabad High Court (Condition of Service of Staff) Rules, 1976". The letter referred to a communication dated 30th May, 1955, addressed by the Accountant General of the appellant-State explaining the provisions in this behalf in the Allahabad High Court (Condition of Service of Staff) Rules, 1946, and stated that there was no provision for grant of premature increment in the 1976 Rules. The letter concluded, "it shall be an irregularity to approve the premature increment without prior approval of His Excellency the Governor".

(3.) The first respondent filed a writ petition to quash the letter dated 27th June, 1992, and to seek a writ of mandamus to the appellant-State and its Director of Pensions to make payment of the balance of his pensionary dues without reducing the amounts of the four premature increments that had been granted to him by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The writ petition was referred to a Full Bench, and the Full Bench allowed it by the judgment and order now impugned.