AKHIL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Akhil Kumar Bhattacharya is a Graduate of Arts. He joined the service of this Court in the year 1927 as an assistant. At that time there was no time -scale of pay for the assistants working in this Court. There were fixed grades of pay (hereinafter referred to as the pre -1931 grades). On 27 -2 -1933 the U. P. Government issued G. O. No. 1752/VII -2665(i) -1931 introducing two grades of pay for the general section of the High Court office instead of the existing one common grade. These grades were termed as superior and subordinate. Similarly, for the translation department two grades known as senior and junior were introduced instead of the one common grade which existed at that time. The G. O. provided that the revised grades will take effect from 1 -4 -1933. With a view to fill up the posts in the superior grade, the then Chief Justice, the late Sir Shah, M. Sulaiman, decided to have an examination held. On 15 -11 -1933 the then Deputy Registrar of the High Court, Mr. S. E. J. Mills, sent the following letter to the petitioner :

(2.) THE petitioner appeared at the examination and stood first in it. It is alleged by him that he was appointed substantively in the superior grade with effect from 1 -1 -1934, and his pay was fixed at Rs. 70/ - p.m. under the orders of the Chief Justice, There are some posts in the High Court which are known as posts of responsibility or trust requiring special qualifications and are called senior grade posts. The petitioners case is that from 1 -1 -1934 he has been working on one of those posts. In 1946, during the Budget Session, the Government gave an assurance to the members of the Legislative Council that a pay committee would be appointed to consider the revision of salaries of Government servants. That committee was actually appointed in 1947. It also made certain recommendations with regard to the revision of salaries of the High Court staff. Three scales of pay were introduced with regard to the High Court staff on the basis of the recommendations of the pay committee with effect from 1 -4 -1947. They are as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_180_TLALL0_1959.htm</FRM>

(3.) ON receipt of that G. O. the Registrar accepted the Governments decision contained in it and held that inasmuch as the petitioner was on 1 -4 -47. holding a post in the pre -1931 scale of Rs. 140/ -, for which the revised scale of Rs. 75 - 5 - 100 - EB - 5 - 160 was prescribed, his election of the new scale with effect from 1 -10 -1947 after his promotion to the pre -1931 grade of Rs. 180/ - was not permissible and therefore refixed his salary at Rs. 145/ - p.m. in the scale of Rs. 75 - 5 - 100 - EB - 5 - 160 with effect from 1 -4 -47 and computed the amount of overpayment at Rs. 2,529/4/ -. Even though the Registrar did so he addressed a letter to the State Government on 27 -5 -1957 (annexure I to the petition) requesting the Government to allow the petitioner as a special case to elect the revised scale of pay on 1 -10 -1947 after his promotion to the pre -1931 grade of Rs. 180/ - and to sanction the fixation of his initial pay at Rs. 184/ -in the scale of Rs. 120 - 8 - 200 - EB - 10 - 300 with effect from that date. The State Government did not agree to the suggestion made by the Registrar and the latter was informed accordingly by the Additional Secretary to the Government of U. P. by letter (G. O.) No. 1215/VII -490/57 dated 5 -10 -1957, That letter was concluded in the following words :