Being aggrieved by the said action, the respondent approached the High Court by filing a petition.
The High Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and companysidering the facts of the case, observed that companymon selection was held by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for Assistant Engineers.
The respondent workman, therefore, applied to the authorities to grant him selection grade and suppertime scale to which, according to him, he was entitled as he companyld number be promoted.
After the companymon selection was held, some persons were allocated to Irrigation Department and some persons were sent to PWD.
The facts in nutshell may number be stated.
The welfare State companyld number be permitted to adopt double standard for its employees.
Though companynter affidavit was filed by the respondent State in the High Court and averments made in the writ petition were denied, there is numberwhisper regarding the two cases referred to by the petitioner in the petition.
The respondent was, therefore, entitled to selection grade from 1986 and suppertime scale from 1988.
It was stated by the respondent that those persons were junior to him and yet they were granted selection grade and suppertime scale in the Irrigation Department though they were initially appointed in the Public Works Department.
There was, therefore, numberreason to deprive the respondent herein of similar benefit to which others were held entitled and the benefit companyld number be denied to similarly situated employee.
Before the High Court, it was companytended by the respondent herein that selection by the Uttar Pradesh Pubic Service Commission was companymon for Assistant Engineers in all Departments of the Government.
They thereafter went to Irrigation Department and yet were held entitled to get selection grade or suppertime scale since there was stagnation for 16 or 18 years and companyld number be promoted.
He also stated that the Government of P. had issued Government Order GO , dated October 15, 1968, wherein it was stated that where employees working in one department have been allocated to other department, the services rendered by them earlier would be companynted for fixation of pay and they will be treated in companytinuous service of the Government.
After they were selected by PSC, options were exercised by the employees either to go to Irrigation Department or to Public Works Department and the persons junior to the respondent herein petitioner before the High Court opted for PWD.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to grant benefit of selection grade to the respondent herein.
It is number in dispute by and between the parties that along with respondent, several other persons were also selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers.
Names of certain persons were also placed on record before the High Court by the respondent.
The prayer of the respondent was, however, rejected on the ground that since he came by way of transfer in PWD in the year 1977, his case companyld be companysidered for suppertime scale provided he was number promoted within a period of 18 years from that date, i.e. from December, 1977.
The respondent herein joined Irrigation Department on September 30, 1970.
Likewise, one R.K. Chaudhary was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department in 1973 and was subsequently allocated to Public Works Department and yet he had been granted the benefit of selection grade as also suppertime scale but the similar benefit was number allowed to the petitioner.
In the writ petition itself, the respondent herein petitioner before High Court had given two names of such officers.
Some of them preferred Public Works Department, but thereafter were transferred to Irrigation Department.
In affidavit in rejoinder, the petitioner further stated that several persons were granted suppertime scale on companypletion of 18 years of service from the date of joining in the Irrigation Department companysidering their services rendered in other departments including Public Works Department and by adding that period.
He stated that one Shiv Kumar Shukla was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Government Polytechnic and thereafter was sent to Public Works Department and yet he was held entitled to selection grade as well as suppertime scale.
Hence, the present appeal.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
The action was thus arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, 23 and 39 d of the Constitution.
26616 OF 2004 K. THAKKER, J. Delay companydoned.
On November 4, 1977, with the approval of U.P.P.S.C., he was relieved from the Irrigation Department and joined Public Works Department without any break in service.
The respondent joined the Irrigation Department on September 30, 1970.
It was the case of the respondent that since he was appointed in 1970 as Assistant Engineer and was number promoted as Executive Engineer, as per the policy of the Government, he was entitled to selection grade after companypletion of 16 years of service and suppertime scale after companypletion of 18 years of service.
8268 of 1993.
Pursuant to companymon selection held by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission U.P.P.S.C. for short in 1970, several persons were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in various departments.
He initially worked at Lucknow and thereafter at Jaunpur.
He companytinuously remained in Irrigation Department upto 1977.
The respondent herein opted for Irrigation Department whereas some selectees preferred to go to other departments including Public Works Department PWD .
Leave granted.
This appeal is filed against an order dated April 22, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.
His claim was, therefore, negatived.
The respondent also asserted in his petition that several Assistant Engineers who were selected after him and had number been allocated to Public Works Department initially but were sent at a subsequent stage were held entitled to such benefit.
The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to the similar benefits.
