Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and has filed counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit and the matter may be heard on the basis of record of the writ petition and averments made in the counter-affidavit.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that of non-payment of retiral benefits by the respondents. The respondents are denying retiral benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he did not complete minimum qualifying service attracting the provisions of pension etc. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Peon on 8.10.1964 in the office of respondent No. 2 by the Additional Basic Education Officer, Banda and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.1.1999 but the retiral benefits have not been paid to him. Hence he made representations, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

3. Respondents have stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was initially appointed in Junior High School on 8.10.1964 on a fixed pay of Rs. 40/- per month and he worked as such till 28.2.1997, whereafter he was placed in the regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with effect from 1.3.1997 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.1.1999. It is said that since the petitioner was regularised only on 1.3.1997 and his earlier service was on fixed pay he did not qualify for pension in view of the decision taken by the State Government as communicated by Special Secretary, of the U.P. Government on 13.6.2007.

4. The service book shows that in column 9 the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner is mentioned as 1.7.1990. Thus the petitioner worked on substantive post from 1.7.90 to 1.7.1999. The pay was revised with effect from 1.1.1986 to 750/- and entry has been made accordingly. The entry in the service book clearly shows that the petitioner was paid salary on fixed pay basis but the post was substantive one.

5. Moreover, this Court also finds that though the service book was prepared on 2.1.1980 but in photocopy of first page, his the date of joining is shown as 1.7.1990.

6. The term ‘post’, ‘pay’ and ‘pay scale’ have different connotations. The post refers to a unit and office. The pay refers to the amount drawn by an employee. Pay scale broadly refers to the concept of a graded limit having minima and maxima i.e minimum pay and maximum pay running for a period of time with self contained rate of increased pay every year etc. There is no fixed concept that for every post there shall be pay/pay scale of a particular nature; pay shall be of a particular nature or that a pay scale be of a particular nature. It may vary. Its structure or constituent may depend on the policy of the employer. This distinction has been noticed in as much as different terms relating to post, pay and pay scale have been defined in Fundamental Rules. The relevant provisions defining ‘Pay’, “Personal Pay” “Presumptive Pay” “Special Pay” “Oversea Pay”, Technical Pay”, “Substantive Pay”, “Time Scale Pay”, “Permanent post”, “Temporary Post, “Tenure Post” are as under:

“Pay:—Pay means amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as—

(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granting in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; and

(ii) overseas pay, technical pay, special pay and personal pay; and

(iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the Governor.”

“Personal Pay:—Personal pay means additional pay granted to a Government servant-

(a) to save him from a loss of substantive pay in respect of a permanent post other than a tenure post due to a revision of pay or to any reduction of such