Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) The material facts which have given rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are slated hereinafter.
(2.) The petitioner was a Bench Secretary Grade - in this Court who has now retired. He was initially appointed to Lower Division Assistant. He appeared in the test for the selection of Bench Secretaries in the year 1963 and was selected as Bench Secretary in the said lest. Prior to 1965 the pay scale of translators and Upper Division Assistants was Rs. 120 - 300 whereas that of the Bench Secretary was Rs. 160 - 320. The Government appointed a Committee known as Pay Rationalisation Committee headed by Sri B. Mukherjee, an Ex - Judge of this Court to rationalise the pay scales of various departments in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said Committee put the aforesaid categories of the employees of the Court, namely, Translators, Upper Division Assistants, Reference Grade Assistants and Bench Secretaries in one category and granted the same pay scale of Rs. 150 - 350, to all. In the year 1968 the employees of the High Court were granted parity with the pay scales of the employees serving in the U.P. Secretariat. Since the pay scale of the Translators of Secretariat was the same which was admissible to the Reference Grade Assistants and as such the pay scale of the Tanslators and Reference Grade Assistants fixed at Rs. 200 - 400 whereas the pay scale of Upper Division Assistants and Bench Secretaries at Rs. 200-450. As a result of the aforesaid new scales of pay the salary of one Shiva Nand Srivastava, Translator, was fixed at Rs. 400/ - in the year 1971, being maximum of the pay scale available to the Translators. Shiva Nand Srivastava was, however, later on promoted as Upper Division Assistant on 15.4.1971 and his pay scale in the Upper Division category was fixed at Rs. 410/ - . The pay scale of Shiva Nand Srivastava was fixed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 - B of the Financial Handbook in the Upper Division category. At the relevant period the petitioner was getting Rs.290/ - as pay. As a result of fixing the salary of Shiva Nand Srivastava in the Upper Division category he started getting higher salary than the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner was senior to him in the Upper Division/Bench Secretary category. Rule 22 - B requires that while fixing the pay scale a cadre should be taken that the senior does not get less salary than his junior.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled to get the salary at least equal to Shiva Nand Srivastava inasmuch as he was senior to him in the Upper Division/Bench Secretary category. Not only the petitioner but there were many other Upper Division Assistants and Bench Secretaries, who were senior to Shiva Nand Srivastava. Therefore, they made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice which was allowed and the salary of the petitioner as well as of others was stepped up and equated with Shiva Nand Srivastava on November 26, 1975/August 21, 1976. After accepting the claim of the petitioner and others, their salary was stepped up with effect from 15.4.1971 and the petitioner started getting enhanced (stepped up salary) from August 1976. Since the salary of the petitioner was stepped up with effect from 15.4.1971 he claimed arrears for the period 15.4.1971 to 17.8.1976 inasmuch as the salary of Shiva Nand Srivastava was fixed in the Upper Division category from 15.4.1971. The petitioner and others employees submitted a representation (annexure 'I' to the writ petition) claiming their arrears. The claim raised by the petitioner was accepted by Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to order that the arrears bills of the petitioner and other incumbents may be prepared and the Government be moved for fund through budget. Thereupon the office of the High Court in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice prepared the arrear bills and the Government was moved for fund vide D. 0. Letter No. 2078/Accts (A) 19.9.1981. After receipt of the bill the Government of Uttar Pradesh made certain quarries with regard to the claim raised by the petitioner and other employees which were replied by the High Court by letter No. 2749/Acctts (A) dated 23-12-1981. The State Government made further quarries with regard to the said bill and the quarries sought for were also replied by the High Court in September 1982. Though all the queries made by the State Government regarding the payment of arrears of bill of the petitioner were suitably replied and no further objection was raised yet the State Government has been sleeping over since September 1982 and no sanction has been accorded for the payment of the arrears of the petitioner. In view of inaction on the part of the State Government in withholding the sanction the petitioner was left with no option but to approach this Court in the instant writ petition in which a prayer has been made that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the fund for the payment of arrears of the salary to the petitioner.;