RAM BALI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2011 whereby petitioner has been denied absorption and parity in Group 'C' service with reference to the status and rank of the post he held in U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSCC Limited") wherefrom he was retrenched and thereafter absorbed on a civil post in Irrigation Department of State of U.P.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under.

(3.) The case set up by petitioner in the writ petition is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the erstwhile UPSCC Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and owned by State Government, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 450/ per month vide letter of appointment dated 06.12.1977 issued by Senior Personnel Officer. The UPSCC Limited came to be closed and petitioner was retrenched on 08.12.1999. The petitioner alongwith others preferred Writ Petition No. 45807 of 2006, claiming absorption on any appropriate post in the State of U.P. in terms of "U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of the State Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991" (hereinafter referred to as the "1991 Rules"). The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 26.09.2006 and this Court directed the State of U.P. to absorb petitioner and others in any vacancy of Group 'C' post (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The aforesaid judgment attained finality after dismissal of intraCourt appeal as also the Special Leave Petition. Consequently, petitioner was appointed as Tracer in the pay scale of Rs. 520020200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/ per month. The petitioner claimed that post of Tracer is a Group 'D' post and, therefore, his absorption is not in accordance with the judgment of this Court as also that of Apex Court dated 31.01.2008, whereby special leave petition was dismissed. Hence he made a representation to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 30.01.2010 requesting that he should be absorbed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the admissible pay scale. It was also pointed out that basic pay of petitioner on the post of Tracer was also fixed wrongly, inasmuch as, vide order dated 25.01.2010 petitioner was placed at the basic pay of Rs. 5900/ while another person, Om Prakash Srivastava, a Tracer, was placed at the basic pay of Rs. 8190/, who was also working alongwith petitioner in UPSCC Limited and was holding a lower rank than petitioner. It is said that petitioner was Junior Engineer (Civil) in UPSCC Limited while Om Prakash Srivastava was Instrument Mechanic. The petitioner was appointed in 1977 while Om Prakash Srivastava was appointed in 1982. It is thus said that in the matter of fixation of pay also, petitioner was discriminated, and the judgment of this Court was not complied with in words and spirit.