- (1.) PURSUANT to the order of the court, the Executive Engineer is present in Court and has also filed a counter affidavit. Since no factual controversy is involved, the writ petition is being decided at this stage without calling for a rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner along with several others petitioners filed writ petition No. 3976 (S/S) of 1997, Nirmal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others before the Lucknow Bench of this Court praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide them a pay scale of 1200-2040 as revised to 4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 13th September, 2005 and a mandamus in terms of the relief claimed was issued.
(2.) THE petitioner, Sri Narayan Soni and seven others also filed writ petition no. 29935 of 1998 before this Court praying for a similar relief. This Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner by a judgment dated 28th July, 2006 in terms of the judgment in Nirmal Singh's case (supra). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that inspite of the judgment of this Court in his favour, the benefits are not being provided to the petitioner in terms of the said judgment. The petitioner accordingly, has prayed that the respondents be directed to provide all the benefits pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court on 22nd July, 2006 and further pay retiral benefits along with arrears plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum, since the petitioner, in the meanwhile, had retired on 31st January, 2012. The counter affidavit reveals that the State Government filed Special Appeal against the judgment in Nirmal Singh's case which was allowed by a judgment dated 18th December, 2008 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. Nirmal Singh's and Others have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India and which has been entertained in which an interim order dated 13th April, 2009 was passed staying the operation of the impugned order, i.e., the order of the Appellate Court. In so far as the order dated 28th July, 2006 is concerned passed in petitioner writ petition No. 29935 of 1998, a Special Appeal has also been filed by the State Government before this Court which is pending in which no interim order has been passed.
(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid admitted facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, in the matter of Nirmal Singh, revives and becomes operative and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the relief in terms of that judgment.;