The differentiation between employees without a reasonable basis violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. Proceedings of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioners-State authorities assailing the judgment and order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow [herein-after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] in Claim Petition No. 1932 of 2011 whereby the Claim Petition has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioners-State authorities to consider the case of the respondent No. 1/Claimant for grant of time-scale, selection grade, one extra increment on completion of 8, 14 and 19 years of satisfactory regular service according to the rules and various government orders and also to consider his case for revision of pay and benefits of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) as per the recommendation made by the 6th Pay Commission in terms of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012.

2. Heard learned State Counsel representing the petitioners-State authorities and Shri Shireesh Kumar appearing for the respondent No. 1/Claimant and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.

3. Before adverting to the competing submissions made by learned Counsel representing the respective parties, we may note certain facts which are necessary for appropriate adjudication of issues involved in this case. Respondent No. 1/Claimant was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer at Education Television Programme Production Centre, Lucknow in the then existing pay scale of Rs.850-1720 vide appointment order dated 15.04.1986 passed by the Secretary of the department concerned. Respondent No. 1/Claimant continued to work on the said post and vide an order dated 10.07.1998 his services were confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 15.04.1987. Having worked in terms of the appointment and confirmation orders as aforesaid, respondent No. 1/Claimant retired on 30.06.2012 and he is being paid provisional pension.

4. Before his retirement, respondent No. 1/Claimant instituted Claim Petition No. 1932 of 2011 under Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 seeking a direction to the petitioners-State authorities to consider his claim in respect of grant of time-scale, selection grade and payment of one additional increment in the selection grade on completion of 8, 14 and 19 years of service respectively. It was further prayed in the claim petition that respondent No. 1/Claimant be also given the benefit of revision of pay on the basis of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 after fixing his pay in the time-scale, selection grade and one additional increment. He had also prayed that on completion of 26 years of service, he also be given the benefit of A.C.P.

5. The claim petition was contested by the petitioners-State authorities, however, on consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition by means of the judgment and order dated 22.04.2014 and it is this order passed by the learned Tribunal which is under challenge herein in this petition.

6. It is noticeable that though the judgment under challenge in this writ petition was rendered by the learned Tribunal on 22.04.2014, however, the writ petition has been filed with a considerable delay of about 5 years on 22.04.2019.

7. It has been argued by the learned State Counsel that the learned Tribunal has erroneously allowed the claim petition and that, in fact, the Tribunal has failed to consider the actual and real purport of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 whereby the State Educational Institute of Technology was given the status of government institute and its 61 employees were given the status of government service with a further stipulation therein that all the benefits as are available to government employees will be available to only 61 employees and no one else.

8. The learned State Counsel emphasizing the aforesaid argument further stated that the learned