In a significant legal battle regarding the centralization of stenographer services, a landmark judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court of India. The case involved the Kanpur Development Authority and the State of Uttar Pradesh, addressing the issue of proper compensation and designation for employees performing stenographer duties. The judgement is a significant step towards ensuring fairness and equity in the treatment of employees. Stay tuned for more insights on this critical ruling!
Facts
- Appellant prayed for arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.
- Appellant appointed as stenographer on ad-hoc basis on 12.12.1969.
- Appellant reverted to clerk on 05.07.1973 and continued in that position.
- Appellant availed leave from 19.09.1973 to 24.08.1974 without receiving salary.
- Administrator appointed appellant as stenographer with retrospective effect from 01.07.1975.
- Appellant claims to have worked as stenographer between 01.01.1976 and 30.11.1987 but was paid as IInd Grade clerk.
- Kanpur Development Authority filed writ petition before the High Court.
- The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal based on the centralization of services of stenographers by the State Government.
- The High Court noted that the services of the appellant as a stenographer were centralized under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 from 22.10.1984.
- The High Court emphasized that the State Government, being the appointing authority, was a necessary party in the case but was not impleaded.
- The order of the Tribunal was overturned by the High Court, which approved the decision of the Kanpur Development Authority.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- Mr. Shrish Kr. Misra, counsel for the appellant, argued that the appellant performed stenographer duties but was paid a clerk’s pay scale.
- The appellant consistently discharged stenographer responsibilities during his service.
- It was highlighted that the appellant was unjustly compensated at the clerk’s pay scale despite performing stenographer duties.
- Mr. Shrish Kr. Misra emphasized the disparity between the appellant’s actual role as a stenographer and the pay he received as a clerk.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Analysis
- The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order due to the State Government not being impleaded as a party.
- As a result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Decision
- The appellant is granted sufficient time to file an additional counter affidavit.
- Both parties will be given a fair hearing.
- The High Court is requested to expedite the matter and dispose of it preferably within six months.
- C.M.W.P. No.6637 of 1992 will revert to its original number.
- The State of Uttar Pradesh will be added as the third respondent in the case.
- The High Court is instructed to reconsider the matter.
- The matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Case Title: RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY Vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Case Number: C.A. No.-010208-010208 / 2010
