IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Irshad Ali, J.
Dr. Vinod Chandra Jain And Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Medical Health and family and anr. – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 13992 of 2019, WRIT -A No. - 29588 of 2019, WRIT -A No. - 24592 of 2020
Decided On : 10-09-2024
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Promotion and Salary Arrears - Denial of promotion and salary arrears to medical officers based on seniority - The court directed the respondents to grant notional benefits of promotion and pay arrears as per seniority list, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Chandra Prakash case. (Paras 4, 29, 31)
(B) Discriminatory Action - The court found the denial of benefits to petitioners arbitrary and discriminatory, as juniors were promoted while petitioners were not, violating the principles of equality and fair treatment. (Paras 6, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, medical officers, challenged the denial of promotion and salary arrears despite being eligible based on seniority, as per the Supreme Court's directive in Dr. Chandra Prakash case.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to notional promotion and salary arrears, directing compliance within three months, with interest for delays.
Issues: The main issues were the denial of promotion and salary arrears based on seniority and the arbitrary nature of the respondents' actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the denial of benefits to the petitioners was arbitrary, as it contradicted the established seniority and previous court orders.
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. Heard Sri Hari Prasad Shukla and Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Ganesh Singh, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.
2. This bunch of writ petitions is being decided by means of a common judgment and order as the controversy involved in the writ petitions is similar in nature treating Writ-A No.13992 of 2019 to be leading writ petition and the order passed thereon shall be equally applicable to all the connected matters.
3. The controversy involved in the present bunch of writ petitions arises due to denial of extension benefit granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No.43 of 1998; Dr. Chandra Prakash and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others decided on 04.12.2002, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 710, the petitioners preferred present writ petitions with following prayer:
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to examine the case of the petitioners to grant the benefit of judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of grant of promotion and position, selection grade and arrears of salary from the date of notional promotion as the same has been given by the respondents to other similarly situated persons.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote and provide the position with all incidental and consequential benefits including selection grade of Rs.4500-5700 to the petitioners as per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix and revise the pension of the petitioners as per rules and pay the arrears of salary as well as arrears of pension with interest at market rate.
v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the selection grade for the post of Joint Director in the pay scale of Rs.4500-5700 as per Government Order dated 29.12.1997, as the same benefits have been given to other similarly situated persons.
vi) Any other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and to award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.
4. There was a dispute in respect of determination of seniority and extension of benefit of promotion and position between the regularly selected and appointed medical officers and medical officers appointed by the Departmental Selection Committee (DSC) on adhoc basis finally deciding the case of Dr. Chandra Prakash (Supra) on 04.12.2002, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
5. In compliance of judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 04.12.2002, on 05.06.2003 the respondents circulated the seniority list of medical officers of Uttar Pradesh Medical and Health Department and in the seniority list, name of
AI
The court ruled that denial of promotion and salary arrears based on seniority is arbitrary and discriminatory, mandating compliance with prior court orders.
Point of Law : Notional promotion- Seniority can be given and also notional promotion only upto the post of Joint Director, the post of Additional Director and Director and Director General being sel....
Employees are not entitled to back wages for notional promotions without actual performance of duties on respective posts.
Discriminatory treatment in promotion affects employees' rights under constitutional provisions, necessitating retrospective benefits and equal treatment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.