Girish Chandra Kandpal vs The District Judge Nainital

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Pooran Singh Rawat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri D.S. Patni, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

By way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent to give him the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 01-02-2007 in pursuance of the order dated 24th June, 2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital.

The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the Petitioner is an employee of the District Court, Nainital and, at the relevant moment of time, was working as a Reader in the court of District Judge, Nainital. On 8th October, 2007 the Petitioner was sent on deputation to the Family Court, Nainital in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. It transpires that the Petitioner represented before the Judge, Family Court, Nainital, on 30th September, 2008 praying that he may be given the selection grade and promotional grade of Rs. 4500-7000. The Judge, Family Court called for a report and thereafter passed an order dated 24th June, 2009 directing that the Petitioner is entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- w.e.f. 1st February, 1997 and grade pay of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 1st February, 2007. But, before it could be implemented, the Petitioner was repatriated to the parent department on 1st July, 2009 pursuant to the order dated 30th June, 2009 issued by the District Judge, Nainital, where he was given the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- instead of Rs. 4200/-. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the reduction of the grade pay, has filed the present writ petition.

Admittedly, the Petitioner is an employee of the District Court, Nainital and is not an employee of the Family Court, Nainital nor his services has been absorbed in the Family Court, Nainital. The Court asked the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as under what powers does the Family Court has to grant the grade pay to the Petitioner with retrospective effect when the Family Court is not the employer. In the absence of any suitable answer being given, the Court is of the opinion that the Judge, Family Court, had no power to give the grade pay to the Petitioner with retrospective effect as per the order dated 24th June, 2009. If the Petitioner was entitled to be given the selection grade and/or the promotional grade pursuant to the Government Order dated 28th February, 2009, the appropriate remedy available with the Petitioner was to approach the competent authority which has not been done. This Court is of the opinion that the order of the Family Court dated 24th June, 2009 is a non est order and cannot be implemented.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that consequently, no writ of mandamus can be issued. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.