Natho Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others

Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition was heard by me and allowed on 20.2.2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the writ petition.

The petitioner who is an employee of erstwhile U.P. Chalchitra Nigam whose services came to an end because of abolition of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam by the State Government.

The petitioner''s contention is that as a consequence of abolition, the petitioner who was holding the post of ClassIII employee was offered ClassIV post for absorption of the employees of U.P. Chalchitra Nigam in the Government services by G.O. dated 6.3.1990. Pursuant to the aforesaid G.O, the District Magistrate, Aligarh issued a letter dated 25.4.1990 whereby he has been asked for his consent for absorption as ClassIII employee in the payscale of Rs. 354750 revised payscale of Rs. 9501500/. This document is annexed as Annexure2 to the writ petition.

The petitioner''s further contention is that the has submitted his consent vide letter dated 30.4.1990 pursuant to the aforesaid offer which is annexed as Annexure3 to the writ petition. But the consent of the petitioner clearly demonstrates if read with the offer of the District Magistrate that he has given consent for absorption on the ClassIII post in the payscale of Rs. 354750 revised payscale Rs. 9501500/ but to the utter surprise of the petitioner who was given ClassIV post. Thereafter petitioner made representation but to no avail. Aggrieved thereby petitioner approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14975 of 1992. This Court vide its order dated 15.2.2000 disposed off the aforesaid writ petition directing the respondents to decide petitioner''s representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the respondents decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2000. The respondents in the impugned order do not dispute that the petitioner was working on ClassIII post in Chalchitra Nigam and he was offered ClassIII post and has consented for absorption on ClassIII post. The only thing that has been stated in the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is that the respondents have no information regarding petitioner''s consent for appointment on ClassIII post on 19.9.1990 and his consent dated 30.4.1990 which according to the petitioner was given under compulsion and coupled with the fact that the petitioner since has worked on ClassIV post from 19.9.1990 up to 1993, therefore, he cannot be given appointment on ClassIV post. Needless to say that the statement of the respondents are contrary to the admitted facts. The respondents have not been able to justify as to why they have not given the petitioner the payscale of ClassIII post.

In this view of the matter, the respondents have committed an error of law apparent on the face of record and the order impugned in the present writ petition deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.

In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner of ClassIII employee.