In a significant legal matter, the State of Uttar Pradesh took on the Kanpur Development Authority in a case that addressed the issue of compensation for a stenographer. The Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgement that highlighted the importance of including all relevant parties in legal proceedings. Stay informed about this case involving the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Kanpur Development Authority.
Facts
- The appellant was initially appointed as a IIIrd grade clerk in 1963 and was confirmed as a IInd grade clerk in 1969.
- Later, he was appointed as a stenographer on an ad-hoc basis in 1969 but was reverted to a clerk in 1973.
- During a period of leave from 1973 to 1974, he was not paid his salary.
- Between 1976 and 1987, the appellant claimed to have worked as a stenographer but was paid only as a IInd Grade clerk.
- In 1988, the Administrator appointed the appellant as a Stenographer with retrospective effect from 1975.
- The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal because the State Government, as the appointing authority for the centralized services of the appellant, was not impleaded as a party.
- The services of stenographers were centralized under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
- The State of Uttar Pradesh was identified as the appointing authority for the centralized stenographer services.
- The High Court emphasized that the State Government, being a necessary party, should have been impleaded.
- The Tribunal’s order was overturned, and the Kanpur Development Authority’s decision was upheld by the High Court.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- Mr. Shrish Kr. Misra, the appellant’s counsel, argued that the appellant was employed as a stenographer but was paid the salary of a clerk throughout his service.
- The discrepancy in pay scales led to the appellant’s appeal for appropriate compensation.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Analysis
- The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal mainly because the State Government was not included as a party in the proceedings.
- As a result, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Decision
- The State of Uttar Pradesh is ordered to be impleaded as the third respondent in C.M.W.P. No.6637 of 1992.
- The matter is remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration.
- C.M.W.P. No.6637 of 1992 shall be restored to its original number.
- The High Court is requested to provide sufficient time for the appellant to file additional counter affidavit.
- Both parties should be given a fair opportunity to be heard.
- The High Court is urged to dispose of the matter within six months from the receipt of this Order.
Case Title: MAHENDRA EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. SAU. DHARMASHEELA W/O RAJENDRA WANKHEDE .
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-032275-032275 / 2016
