- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Arun Kumar Shukla seeks the following reliefs: " (A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Director of Technical Education (U. P.), Government Polytechnic Campus Kanpur (Respondent No. 1) and Joint Director of Technical Education (U. P.) Government Polytechnic Campus, Kanpur (Respondent No. 2) to pay to the petitioner promotional scale of pay (Rs. 2200-4000 and revised to Rs. 8000-13500 from 1-1-1996 with effect from 9-3-1993. (B) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (C) Award the cost of the case in favour of the petitioner. " Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Instructor (Civil), subsequently re-designated as Assistant Lecturer (Civil), in Government Polytechnic, Jhansi on 9-3-1977. The appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis at that time. Subsequently, the State Government decided to regularize the services of the ad hoc appointees, appointed on or before 1st January, 1977 by framing the U. P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (on Posts within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979. The aforesaid Rules were further amended in the year 1984 and the cut off date for regularisation of ad hoc appointees was shifted from 1st January, 1977 to 1st May, 1983. The petitioner claimed regularisation of his services on the basis of the amendment made in the year 1984. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authorities whereupon he challenged the order of rejection by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28082 of 1996, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 18th May, 1998. This Court was of the opinion that the approach adopted by the respondents was not correct. It may be mentioned here that the regularisation of the petitioner's services was refused on the ground that on the date of his appointment, his date of birth being 4-12-1957, he was less than 21 years of age. The Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders regularizing the petitioner on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Civil) within a month from the date a copy of the order is filed.
(2.) AGAINST the order dated 18-5-1998 the State of U. P. and other respondents preferred Special Leave Petition, being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil ). . . CC 1351/1991, in the Apex Court, which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 19th March, 1999. In the mean time the Director, Technical Education, U. P. vide order dated 12th January, 1999 regularized the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Civil) subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition. The petitioner vide order dated 1-12-2001 has been granted promotional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 w. e. f. 12th January, 1999. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for promotional pay scale from 9th March, 1993 as he became eligible for the same on that date. Sri S. K. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was given selection grade on 9th March, 1987 after completion of 10 years' satisfactory service. He further submitted that services of the persons junior to the petitioner, namely, Dhananjay Rai, Hari Shankar Gupta, Satyendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Gajraj Singh, Ashok Kumar Mishra and Kaushal Kumar Singh have been regularized much earlier and in absence of the specific date of regularisation in the order dated 12th January, 1999, the petitioner's date of regularisation would be treated as a date on which his juniors have been regularized. In spite of time having been granted several times, the State has not filed counter-affidavit. The Court vide order dated 12th April, 2006 had granted three weeks and no more time to the State to file counter-affidavit but in spite of the stop order the counter-affidavit has not been filed. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition.
(3.) WE have gone through the order of regularisation dated 12th January, 1999 and we find that no specific date has been mentioned in the said order. It has only been mentioned therein that the regularisation of the petitioner will be subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of U. P. in the Apex Court. Thus, the date of regularisation of the services of the petitioner would be treated as the date on which the petitioner's juniors have been regularized. The promotional pay scale under Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 was admissible after completion of six years' satisfactory service from the date of grant of selection grade. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted selection grade on 9th March, 1987 and, therefore, counting six years from that date, 9th March, 1993 would be the date on which petitioner became eligible for grant of promotional pay scale. As already mentioned hereinbefore that the date of regularisation of the services of the petitioner should be treated as the date on which his juniors have been regularized and if the petitioner has been granted selection grade on 9th March, 1987, as stated by him in paragraph 45 of the writ petition, which remains uncontroverted by the respondents, in view of the Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989, he is entitled for grant of promotion pay scale after completion of six years from the date of grant of selection grade i. e. , from 9th March, 1993. This fact may be verified by the Director, Technical Education, U. P. and if the same is correct, he should pass appropriate orders for grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioner from 9th March, 1993, within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. The arrears shall also be paid within two months thereafter.;