State of Uttarakhand and Others vs Hukum Singh Negi

V.K. Bist, Actg. C.J. and Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as clerk on 8.4.1969 with Basic Education Board, Uttar Pradesh. On 28.7.2000, he was promoted on the post of Head Clerk. After creation of State of Uttarakhand, he continued to work under the Board. The State of Uttarakhand created School Education Act, 2006. As per section 58 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, services of all the teaching and non-teaching staff posted with the Basic Education Board stood transferred to Government Department with effect from publication of the Notification in the Official Gazette. The notification was published on 24.6.2006 but it was made effective from 22.4.2006, therefore, petitioner became Government Servant with effect from 22.4.2006. The State Government issued Notification on 3.6.2006 providing therein that all the Senior Assistants or - Chief Assistants working in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 or Head Clerk working in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 shall be re-designated as Administrative Officer Grade II and shall be paid salary of Rs. 5000-150-8000 instead of Rs. 4500-125-7000. The petitioner claimed for the benefit of the said Government Notification dated 3.6.2006, which was denied to him on the ground that prior to transfer of his service from Basic Education Board to the State Government, pay scales of ministerial staff working with the Government Basic Education Board, were different. The Hon''ble Single Judge held that the pay scale of the Head Clerk, Senior Assistant or Chief Assistant was Rs. 4500-125-7000 has now been increased to Rs. 5000-150-8000 and posts are redesignated as Administrative Officer Grade II. The petitioner is entitled for enhanced pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000. The Hon''ble Single Judge quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay, pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 to the petitioner and to calculate the arrears and release the amount of arrears in favour of the petitioner within 90 days from that day. It was further directed that if arrears are not paid within 90 days from that day, interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall also be paid from the date of passing of the judgment till the actual payment is made. Learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellants contended that the Government Order dated 3.6.2006 was only for the Government employees as has been clarified in the letter dated 19.6.2007. The respondent/petitioner being the employee of the Board is not entitled to the benefit of this pay scale. This submission of learned Counsel for the State/appellants is misconceived, inasmuch as on 22.4.2006, the petitioner became the employee of the State Government. In view of section 56 of the Uttarakhand School Education, 2000 the petitioner had no choice to remain with the Board as in view of section 58 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, the services of every employee of the Board stood compulsorily transferred to the Government. He contended that infact pay scales of Senior Assistant and Chief Clerk were unified whereas the post of the Chief Clerk was a promotional post of Senior Assistant. He contended that the benefit was infact given to the Government employee and their promotion was curtailed earlier. He further contended that since there are no promotions available in the service of the Board, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of this Government Order. This argument of learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellants is not tenable. Once an employee becomes a Government employee, he is entitled for all the benefits which similarly situated Government employees are entitled. The appellants cannot be permitted to raise the plea that earlier respondent/petitioner was not employee of the Board and there was no promotion, therefore, he cannot be granted this benefit of the pay scale in the Government service. As already stated by us, the respondent/petitioner did not become Government employee of his choice, he was compelled to become a Government employee by virtue of section 58 of School Education Act.

In our view, the judgment passed by the Single Judge is very clear. The same does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Time granted by the Hon''ble Single Judge to make payment of arrears is extended for a further period of three months from today.