BRAJ NARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to grant arrears of selection grade of Lecturer pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.10.2005 till his retirement i.e. on 30.6.2007 with a further direction to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of selection grade of lecturer pay scale.

(2.) From the averments in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Goswami Tulsidas Inter College, Padrauna, District-Kushinagar. He was promoted as Lecturer and retired as such on 30.6.2007. According to him he should have been granted the selection grade on completion of 10 years of continuous service as given to some others. It is also contended that the Principal of the college had recommended granting of selection grade to the petitioner but no decision has been taken by the DIOS, Kushinagar in this regard. On a preliminary objection that the claim raised by the petitioner is barred by limitation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Kunwar Singh Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2007 2 ESC 1169. In that case the Court has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others, 1995 5 SCC 628 wherein, the Supreme Court with regard to fixation of pay scale has held that the same is a continuous cause of action and a petition claiming such relief would not be barred by limitation however, any claim for arrears on account of such fixation of pay would be barred by limitation.

(3.) However, in a subsequent decision reported in Union of India and Other Vs. O.P. Saxena, 1997 6 SCC 360 a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while deciding a bunch of cases where the relief was with regard to grant of stepping up of pay to the respondents therein vis-a-vis one Sri P.N. Kareer the Supreme Court on merits as well as on the question of limitation allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim holding therein that the respondent did not raise any claim for stepping up of pay while he was in service. He retired on 31.3.1988 and filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal only in July, 1991.