S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) SINCE common question of facts and law are involved in these special appeals, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement and order.
(2.) THESE special appeals have been filed challenging the judgement and orders dated 16.3.2010, 12.12.2013, 10.2.2012, 16.9.2011, 11.10.2011, 29.08.2013, 13.02.2012, 13.02.2012, 13.02.2012, 19.03.2010, 5.10.2010, 27.5.2010, 16.9.2010, 1.2.2012, 1.2.2012, 1.2.2012, 11.10.2011, 17.2.2012, 25.2.2012 passed by learned Single Judges in various writ petitions. The facts leading to the present dispute, are that a Government Order was issued on 22.12.1981 creating 2174 temporary posts of Part -time Tubewell Operators at fixed pay of Rs. 150/ - per month. Thereafter another Government Order was issued on 18.2.1982 prescribing the service conditions of Part -time Tubewell Operators. In pursuance to the aforesaid Government Orders, certain persons were appointed on the post in question and during the course of employment, certain dispute arose between the employees and the employer, pursuant to which a claim petition was filed by 73 persons before the Labour Court bearing No. 20 of 1983. The Labour Court decided the claim petition by means of award dated 15.7.1989, by means of which 73 Part -time Tubewell Operators were given the regular pay scale and other service benefits treating them as regular Tubewell Operators on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the State Government filed Writ Petition bearing No. 1502 (SS) of 1992. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a notification was issued by the State Government on 20.2.1992 changing the nomenclature of Part -time Tubewell Operators to Tubewell Assistants and also enhance their emolument to Rs. 250/ - per month. The said action of the State Government was challenged by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others by means of Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. Similar relief has also been claimed by the similarly situated Part -time Tubewell Operators by filing various writ petitions. All the writ petitions were decided together by the learned Single Judge by means of judgement and order dated 18.5.1994, whereby writ petitions filed by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, and other similarly situated persons were allowed and the notification issued by the State Government was quashed, whereas writ petition filed by the State Government was dismissed and the State Government was directed to pay all the respondents therein the same emoluments i.e. the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed Tubewell Operators were being paid. Aggrieved against the said judgement and order, Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994 was filed by the State Government before the apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.3.1995. In compliance of the order of the apex Court, the State Government issued a consequential order providing pay -scale of Tubewell Operators to all the writ petitioners covered by the judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 with effect from the date of judgement i.e. 18.5.1994. Subsequently, another Government Order was issued on 10.11.1995 thereby giving the benefit of regular pay -scale of Tubewell Operators to 73 persons, who were covered by the award passed by the Labour Court dated 15.7.1989 with effect from 31.3.1989. Thereafter, another writ petition bearing No. 103 (SS) of 1996 was filed by Jai Karan Singh and others, Part -time Tubewell Operators, seeking benefit of regular pay -scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 as has been given to 73 persons in pursuance to the award passed by the Labour Court. Several other writ petitions were also filed claiming the same benefit. All the writ petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgement and order dated 25.4.1996 by means of which a direction was given by this Court to give the benefit of regular pay -scale from the date of judgement i.e. 25.4.1996. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and order, several special appeals were filed, leading Special Appeal is of No. 152 of 1996, and a Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the special appeals vide judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 by giving the benefit of regular pay -scale to all Part -time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 18.5.1994 i.e. the date of decision of Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992 filed by Suresh Chandra Tewari and others. Thereafter another Writ Petition No. 7489(SS) of 2000 was filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and 19 others, which was allowed by this Court on the first day of hearing vide judgement and order dated 21.12.2000 giving the benefit of regular pay -scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989. It is alleged that writ petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition were misrepresented by the Court while passing the aforesaid order by saying that Suresh Chandra Tewari and others had been given the benefit of regular pay -scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No. 155 (SS) of 2001 was filed by Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 26.4.2001 on the ground that the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 squarely covered the case of the petitioners and the learned Single Judge was not made aware of the said judgement while passing the order in writ petition filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others. Against the said judgement, petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition preferred Special Appeal No. 188 of 2002, which was also dismissed. Writ Petition No. 1983(SS) of 2001 filed by Babban Prasad and others, was also dismissed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 26.4.2001. Thereafter Writ Petition Nos. 2679(SS) of 1992 and 2728(SS) of 1993 were filed by similarly situated Part -time Tubewell Operators, which were allowed by giving the benefit of regular pay -scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 as the order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Division Bench was not placed before the learned Single Judge. Special Appeal Nos. 548 of 2000, 549 of 2000 and 551 of 2000 were filed by the State Government against the aforesaid judgement and orders, which were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.7.2005 placing reliance upon the judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 passed in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996. Thereafter, the State of U.P. filed Special Appeal No. 336 of 2001 against the judgement and order dated 21.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 7489(SS) of 2000, which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 22.5.2009 relying on the statement made by the counsel for the respondents that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had finally settled the matter. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, a review petition bearing No. 120 of 2000 was filed by the State of U.P., which too was dismissed vide order dated 20.7.2010. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No. 1818 (SS) of 2002 was filed by Kamlesh Kumar Singh and others praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities to pay arrears of salary to them w.e.f. 31.3.1989 in the regular pay -scale. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2010 in terms of the order dated 21.12.2000 passed in writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 on the information given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question involved in the said writ petition had already been decided by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000, whereby this Court had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 18.5.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. Against the said order, the State Government filed Review Petition No. 304 of 2010 with some delay, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2013. In the meantime, several writ petitions were filed by the similarly situated Part -time Tube -well Operators claiming the benefit of the judgement and order passed in Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 and the said writ petitions were allowed, against which the State Government filed special appeals before this Court and thereafter special leave petitions before the apex Court, which were dismissed. Hence these special appeals.
(3.) SUBMISSION of Mrs. Bulbul Godial, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the award of the Labour Court passed in Claim Petition No. 20 of 1983 granting regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of Reference was challenged by the State by means of Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992. She further submits that during the pendency of the said writ petition, several other Part -time Tubewell Operators also filed writ petitions before this Court directly and the said writ petitions were connected with two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 1502 (SS) of 1992 filed by the Engineer -in -Chief, Irrigation Department, against one of the awards passed by the Labour Court and Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari vs. State of U.P. challenging the notification dated 20.2.1992 and they were decided together vide judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 by the learned Single Judge giving regular pay scale to the Part -time Tubewell Operators and thereafter the matter attained finality from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, two Government Orders were issued, namely, 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995. Therefore, the claim by the respondents for regular pay scale in pursuance to the award dated 31.3.1989, is altogether misconceived and neither the same can be given as all other Part -time Tubewell Operators were given the regular pay scale w.e.f. 18.5.1994 in pursuance to the judgement rendered in Writ Petition No. 3558 (SS) of 1992. The respondents after having accepted the benefit of the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 and after accepting the regular pay scale w.e.f. 18.5.1994, they can not turn around and demand arrears w.e.f. 31.3.1989 without challenging the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 as the said Government Orders were issued in pursuance to the order of this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court wile dismissing the Special Leave Petition No. 16219 of 1994 against the judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 observed that the Labour Court directed the Part -time Tubewell Operators be paid the same salary prospectively as was being drawn by the regular Tubewell Operators. This Court re -appreciated the evidence and concurred with the Labour Court and, therefore, there was no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of two courts. It is also submitted that Writ Petition No. 103 (SS) of 1996 was filed by one Jai Karan Singh and others seeking benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and the Hon'ble Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition on 25.4.1996 giving the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of said judgement i.e. w.e.f. 25.4.1996. Against the said judgement, Special Appeal No. 152 (SB) of 1996 was filed, which was partly allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 4.12.1998 giving the benefit of regular pay scale to all the Part -time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 18.5.1994 i.e. the date of decision in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari and others. A similar demand was made by similarly situated persons in Writ Petition No. 155 (SS) of 2001, Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, and in Writ Petition No. 1983 (SS) of 2001, Babban Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others, which were dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 26.4.2001 by observing that the judgement rendered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 152 (SB) of 1996 dated 4.12.1998 was not brought to the notice of the Writ Court, which decided Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000, Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. on 21.12.2000. The said judgement dated 26.4.2001 chalked out the history of litigation leading to the award of the Labour Court and the High Court has specifically mentioned that two Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 clearly stated that only 73 Part -time Tubewell Operators, who were covered under the Labour Court's award, were entitled for the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and for rest of the Part -time Tubewell Operators, the matter could not be reopened and the judgement and order dated 18.5.1994 has attained finality, which has awarded the regular pay scale prospectively. It is submitted that Special Appeal No. 188 of 2002 preferred against the judgement and order dated 26.4.2001 has also been dismissed by this Court. It is also submitted that another Division Bench partly allowed Special Appeal Nos. 548 of 2000, 549 of 2000 and 551 of 2000 on 14.7.2005 relying upon earlier binding precedent in the case of Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh dated 4.12.1998. The Division Bench in its order dated 14.7.2005, directed that the petitioners -respondents shall be entitled to parity of regular pay scale only w.e.f. the date of judgement in the case of Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, i.e. with effect from 18.5.1994. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgement rendered in Writ Petition No. 7489 (SS) of 2000 filed by Awadhesh Kumar Singh and others, was decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge on the first day of hearing on 21.12.2000 on the assertion made by the petitioners therein that Suresh Chandra Tewari and others, had been given regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 and the Division Bench judgement rendered in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 filed by Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh on 4.12.1998 or the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 were not brought to the notice of the Writ Court. She has further submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judges in several writ petitions filed later on the basis of judgements of two Division Benches of this Court dated 2.5.2009 and 24.5.2011, have failed to lay down the correct law on the reasoning that the Special Leave Petition against the said judgement has been dismissed as they were decided on the basis of statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents therein and also could not take notice of the Government Orders dated 27.10.1995 and 10.11.1995 or the binding precedent of coordinate Benches of the same High Court's judgements dated 4.12.1998 and 14.7.2005. The submission is that leading case of Sinchai Mazdoor Sangh had filed Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996, which was connected with 49 such Special Appeals filed by similarly situated Part -time Tubewell Operators and the same were decided by another Division Bench on 4.12.1998 and the said judgement was leading judgement and the said benefit ought to have been given accordingly to all the Part -time Tubewell Operators instead of giving the benefit from 31.3.1989. In sum and substance, the argument is that the Hon'ble Single Judges could not take notice of the aforesaid glaring facts, which were on record to form an opinion and allowing the regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.3.1989 to the respondents.;