Supreme Court directs fresh hearing on stenographer’s pay scale: Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna
Can an employee be denied the salary of a higher post if they have been performing the duties of that post? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning a stenographer who was paid as a clerk. The court did not delve into the merits of the case, but rather focused on a procedural issue, remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing after impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh as a necessary party. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The appellant, Radhey Shyam Pandey, was initially appointed as a IIIrd grade clerk in 1963 and later confirmed as a IInd grade clerk in 1969. Subsequently, he was appointed as a stenographer on an ad-hoc basis on December 12, 1969. However, on July 5, 1973, he was reverted to the position of clerk. The appellant took leave from September 19, 1973, to August 24, 1974, during which he did not receive a salary. According to the appellant, he worked as a stenographer between January 1, 1976, and November 30, 1987, but was paid the salary of a IInd Grade clerk. His requests for arrears and allowances as a stenographer were not addressed by the authorities.

On December 16, 1988, the Administrator of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, issued an order appointing the appellant as a Stenographer with retrospective effect from July 1, 1975. Following this, the appellant sought arrears of salary and other consequential benefits. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal No.II, Lucknow, on November 13, 1991, ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the authorities to pay him the arrears of salary as applicable to a stenographer.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Kanpur Development Authority challenged the Tribunal’s order by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, in its impugned order, noted that the services of stenographers had been centralized by the addition of Section 5-A to the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, effective from October 22, 1984. The High Court determined that, under Section 5-A of the 1973 Act, the appellant’s services were centralized, and the State of Uttar Pradesh was the appointing authority. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and upheld the order of the Kanpur Development Authority, citing the non-impleadment of the State Government as a necessary party.

Legal Framework

The High Court referred to Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which deals with the centralization of services of stenographers. The court noted that this section came into effect on October 22, 1984. The High Court interpreted this section to mean that the State Government became the appointing authority for stenographers, and therefore, the State Government was a necessary party to the proceedings.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Shrish Kr. Misra, argued that the appellant had consistently performed the duties of a stenographer but had been paid the salary of a clerk. He contended that the appellant was entitled to the pay scale of a stenographer for the period he worked in that capacity.

The respondent’s counsel, Ms. Reena Singh, argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal’s order, as the State Government, being the appointing authority for stenographers, was a necessary party and had not been impleaded in the proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but focused on the procedural aspect of whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal’s order due to the non-impleadment of the State Government.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

There are no authorities cited in the judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, not on the merits of the case, but on the procedural ground that the State of Uttar Pradesh, a necessary party, had not been impleaded. The court ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to be impleaded as the third respondent in the High Court proceedings. The matter was then remitted back to the High Court for a fresh consideration.

The court stated:

“Since the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the State Government has not been impleaded as a party in the proceedings, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The State of Uttar Pradesh is ordered to be impleaded as the third respondent in C.M.W.P. No.6637 of 1992 and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh.”

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant to file an additional counter affidavit and to dispose of the matter preferably within six months from the receipt of a copy of the order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural requirement of impleading all necessary parties in a case. The Court emphasized that the State Government, being the appointing authority for stenographers under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was a necessary party to the proceedings. The Court did not delve into the merits of the appellant’s claim for arrears of salary but focused on ensuring that all relevant parties were present to allow for a fair and complete adjudication of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of impleading all necessary parties in a legal proceeding.
• The State Government was deemed a necessary party in this case due to its role as the appointing authority for stenographers under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
• The matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing with the State Government as a party, indicating that the court did not decide on the merits of the case.
• The High Court was directed to dispose of the matter within six months, highlighting the need for timely resolution of such matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh is 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 fresh consideration.
• The High Court is to provide sufficient time to the appellant to file an additional counter affidavit.
• The High Court is to dispose of the matter preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Development of Law

The judgment emphasizes the procedural aspect of impleading necessary parties, particularly when a statutory provision designates a specific authority as the appointing authority. The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a statute designates the State Government as the appointing authority for a particular post, the State Government is a necessary party in any dispute relating to that post. This judgment reinforces the principle that all necessary parties must be included in a legal proceeding to ensure a fair and complete adjudication of the matter.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority (2019) focused on the procedural aspect of impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh as a necessary party in a dispute concerning the pay scale of a stenographer. The court did not decide on the merits of the case but remitted it back to the High Court for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of including all relevant parties in a legal proceeding.