Mohd. Sharif and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

I.P. Vasishth, J.—The court is ceased of three distinct though similar petitions bearing Writ Petition Nos. 7202 (S/S) of 1993, 521 (S/S) of 1994 and 526 (S/S) of 1994 containing a common grouse of the Petitioners with regard to release of certain service benefits in the domain of special pay, special work allowance, fixed house rent, motor cycle subsidy, etc.

The gist of the matter is that the Petitioners are employees of the ministerial staff of the State Police and working in various wings of the district establishments. Range Head quarters and Police Head quarters. It was contended that the police employees working in the Executive Cadre of the force were drawing certain benefits of the type enumerated above, but for some unjustifiable reasons the Respondents were depriving them thereof. The action was thus stated to be discriminatory and appropriate relief for the release of the aforesaid allowances was claimed by way of mandamus in all these three petitions.

Resisting the Petitioners endeavour for the extra benefits, the Respondents pleaded that there was a clear distinction in the nature of duties and responsibilities fastened upon the Ministerial Staff and the force working in the field popularly called on executive duty.

During the course of hearing, the attention of the court was drawn towards its earlier judgment rendered on 23.9.1991 in A.K. Misra and Ors. v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 6700 of 1986, commanding upon the Respondents to treat the Ministerial Staff of the police force at par with its executive staff in the context of all such benefits like special work allowance, special pay, fixed house rent allowance, motor subsidy and one month''s extra pay. This judgment was allowed to become final by the State. The tone and tense of the judgment leaves no manner of doubt that its scope was not limited to the particular Petitioners alone rather it was a sort of judgment-in rem.

Be that as it may, a similar view was taken by this Court both at its Lucknow Bench as well as at Allahabad in the matter of D.D. Singh and Ors. v. State Writ Petition No. 7323 of 1992, dated 28.8.1993; Rajendra Prasad and Ors. v. State Writ Petition No. nil of 1994, dated 10.1.1994; Kedar Nath Srivastava and Ors. v. State Writ Petition No. 42473 of 1993, dated 14.12.1993; H.N. Srivastava and Ors. v. State Writ Petition No. 39648 of 1993, dated 14.12.1993 and Tej Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. nil of 1993, dated 15.10.1993. Out of these decisions, the matter of Tej Bahadur Singh was agitated by the State before the Hon''ble Supreme Court by way of S. L. P. No. 21210 of 1994 which, though dismissed at one stage for want of prosecution, was ultimately dismissed on merit on 23.8.1996 as would be evident from Annexure 8 attached with Writ Petition No. 7202 of 1993.

From the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the issue has already been settled at the appropriate Judicial forum and the State could not possibly walk out of it. To crown it all in 1994 the State itself issued G. O. No. 905/Chha-Pu-1-94-500/431/93, dated, 8.4.1994 (Annexure 2 per Writ Petition No. 526 (S/S) of 1994) releasing these benefits to the Petitioners of the aforesaid cases. Actually, this G. O. appears to be based on the judicial pronouncements rendered in the aforesaid cases and as mentioned hereinbefore, those judgments are not judgments in person. They rather appear to be the judgments- in rem because primarily, they decided a legal issue relating to the State and its employees in the police force as a whole.

Hence for the reasons recorded above, all the three Petitioners deserve to be allowed, accordingly a mandamus is issued commanding upon the Respondents to treat the Petitioners are employees placed like them at par with their counter-parts working on the executive strength of the police force to the context of special allowances like pay, special work allowance, fixed house rent and motor cycle subsidy etc.

Cost on parties.