Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, j. - (1.) Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent is a retrenched employee of Auto Tractor Limited situated at Pratapgarh which was a Government Company and wind up due to sickness. He preferred a writ petition seeking for a suitable direction to extend the benefits of the revised pay protection which was allowed vide order dated 23.11.2016 in terms of the order passed in the matter of Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 410 (S/B) of 2010. Attention has also drawn to the order dated 07.12.2017 passed in the Special Appeal Defective No. 290 of 2015 State of U.P. v. Kamlesh Kumar and has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view in the special appeal also. The order dated 07.12.2017 reads as under:- 'Heard Sri Pratyush Tripathi, learned State Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri I.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of the present special appeal, the appellants/State has challenged the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6476 of 2013 (S/S) (Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others). The said order reads as under:- 'Heard Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, counsel holding brief of Shri Keshav Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned standing counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him the benefit of revised pay protection and also calculate his previous service rendered in Auto Tractor Ltd. from 24.1.1981 to 20.11.1990 for pensionary benefits in the light of the decision of this Court passed in W.P. (S/B) No. 410 of 2010 Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Semi Skilled B in 1981 in the Auto Tractor Ltd. at Pratapgarh and he joined on 24.1.1981 in the pay scale of 360 - 550. The Auto Tractor Ltd. is stated to be government company and thereafter was declared sick and closed down on 20.11.1990. The petitioner stood retrenched but in the meantime he has also been promoted to the post of Semi Skilled A in the grade of 410 - 640 (1025 - 1720) revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Thereafter the retrenched employees of the Auto Tractor Ltd. including the petitioner were absorbed by the State Government. The petitioner joined as Assistant Boring Technician in the revised pay scale of Rs. 950 - 1500 and joined as such from 1.2.1997 at Development Block Bisanda District Banda. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. (S/B) 410 of 2010 (Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) wherein an identical controversy was involved relating to the retrenched employees of the Auto Tractor Ltd. and the case was disposed of with the following observations: '24. In the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition it is submitted that para 14 of the writ petition needs no comments. State is not expected to behave like an ordinary litigant taking different stands at different stages of the same litigation. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the S.L.P. The ground was taken by the State that past services of the retrenched employee shall be counted towards service benefit and this fact has not been specifically controverted in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the past service of the petitioner was liable to be considered for time bound pay scales and other benefits. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.10.2009 is hereby quashed. Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to act upon the report of the Finance Department (Annexure No. 12), in which the salary of the petitioner was fixed as Rs. 3187/- The different of the salary (i.e. Rs. 3187-2300 = Rs. 887) shall be paid to the petitioner as personal pay which shall be absorbed in future increments. His retiral dues shall be recalculated keeping in view the period during which he remained out of job. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% on the difference of the salary which shall be paid to him as personal pay. Petitioner is not entitled to any other relief. Since the petitioner has retired therefore he shall be entitled only to arrears. This entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within 3 months from today.'
(3.) It is not in dispute between the parties that this judgment ultimately attained finality when the SLP filed by the State against the said judgment was dismissed on 7.1.2013, as stated in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit. Following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (supra) several judgments have been given by learned Single Judge of this Court such as W.P. No. 2496 of 2009 (Mriyunjai Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. and others decided on 12.9.2013, W.P. No. 6264 of 2013 (Dev Pratap Pandey v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 10.3.2014 and W.P. No. 7530 of 2013 (Radheyshyam Kashyap v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 12.3.2014. ;