AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State, Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Dr. Udyog Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.
The Bipin Tripathi Kumaon Institute of Technology is in appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1184 of 2014 dated 19.04.2017.
The respondents-writ petitioners herein had filed the Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay them arrears of salary as per the 6th pay-commission's recommendations pending from 01.01.2006; and a mandamus to follow the government rules/norms regarding the leave and holidays in the Institute.
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondents-writ petitioners were to be granted the minimum pay-scale as per the recommendation of the 6th pay commission; it had come in the reply that the matter was to be placed before the Board of Governors; till date the matter has not been placed before the Board of Governors; and similarly situated persons, serving in the Pauri Garhwal Engineering College, had been granted minimum pay-scale on the basis of the recommendation of the 6th pay commission. While allowing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants-respondents to place the matter before the Board of Governors within four weeks from the date of the order. While directing the Board of Governors to send the recommendation to the State Government, the learned Single Judge observed that the State Government shall take a decision within four weeks, after receipt of the recommendation of the Board of Governors.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would contend that, since a decision is required to be taken by the Board of Governors, the learned Single Judge could not have issued a mandamus directing them to recommend the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners to the State Government; this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would, ordinarily, not substitute its views for that the Board of Governors; and the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge both to the Board of Governors, and to the State Government, to act in a particular manner is contrary to law and is illegal.
On the other hand Dr. Udyog Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would submit that the question whether or not a mandamus could have been issued to the Board of Governors, to recommend the case of the respondents-writ petitioners, has now been rendered academic since the Board of Governors had already recommended the respondents-writ petitioners' claim to the State Government; and the learned Single Judge had merely fixed a time frame for the matter to be considered, and had not issued a mandamus to the State Government to grant the benefits sought for in the Writ Petition.
We find considerable force in the submission of Dr. Udyog Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners. While the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in issuing directions to the Board of Governors, to recommend the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners to the State Government, the fact remains that the Board of Governors had recommended their case even prior thereto; and, since the Board of Governors had recommended the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners on their own accord and not pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the question whether such a direction could have been issued by the learned Single Judge to the Board of Governors, is merely academic; and does not, therefore, necessitate examination in an intra-court appeal.
The other submission of Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, is that a writ of mandamus was issued to the State Government to approve the recommendation of the Board of Governor. This contention does not find support from the contents of the order under appeal. All that the learned Single Judge has observed is that the State Government should take a final decision within four weeks after receipt of the recommendation of the Board of Governors. The order does not obligate the State Government to approve the Board of Governors recommendations. All that they were required to do, in terms of the order under appeal, was to take a considered decision in the light of the recommendations of the Board of Governors.
Since there is no direction in the order under appeal, to the State Government to take a decision in a particular manner, the apprehension expressed, on behalf of the appellants is unfounded.
Subject to the clarification mentioned hereinabove, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.