1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s). 10208 OF 2010

RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY                                Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                       Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) The appellant was appointed as IIIrd grade clerk in the

year 1963 and he was confirmed as IInd grade clerk vide Order

dated 23.10.1969.  Thereafter, the appellant was appointed as a

stenographer  on  ad-hoc  basis  on  12.12.1969.   Later,  the

appellant was reverted as clerk on 05.07.1973 and he continued

to work in that post.  The appellant also availed leave from

19.09.1973 to 24.08.1974 during which period he was not paid

salary.   The  period  during  which  he  worked  i.e.  between

01.01.1976 and 30.11.1987, according to the appellant he worked

as a stenographer; but he was paid salary only as a IInd Grade

clerk.  When the appellant made the representation to pay his

arrears and allowances as the stenographer, the same was not

considered.

(2) By  Order  dated  16.12.1988,  the  Administrator,  Nagar

Mahapalika, Kanpur, appointed the appellant as the Stenographer

with retrospective effect from 01.07.1975.  As noted earlier,

the  appellant  prayed  for  the  arrears  of  salary  and  other

2

consequential benefits.  U.P. Public Service Tribunal No.II,

Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, vide Order dated 13.11.1991 allowed

the application of the appellant and directed the authorities

to pay him arrears of salary as payable to stenographer.

(3) Being  aggrieved,  the  Kanpur  Development  Authority

preferred writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court

vide the impugned order pointed out that the services of the

stenographers were centralised by adding Section 5-A of the

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 w.e.f.

22.10.1984.  Pursuant to Section 5-A of the 1973 Act, the High

Court observed that services of the appellant was centralised

one  and  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  was  the  appointing

authority.  The High Court while pointing out that the State

Government being necessary party is not impleaded, set aside

the order of the Tribunal and approved the order of the Kanpur

Development  Authority.   Being  aggrieved,  the  appellant  is

before us.    

(4) We  have  heard  Mr.  Shrish  Kr.  Misra,  learned  counsel

appearing  for  the  appellant  and  Ms.  Reena  Singh,  learned

counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent  and  also  perused  the

impugned judgment.

(5) The High Court vide impugned order set aside the order of

the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the services of the

appellant as stenographer were centralised one and the State

Government  being  the  appointing  authority,  has  not  been

impleaded as party.

3

(6) Mr. Shrish Kr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, has submitted that the through out his service, the

appellant was discharging his duties only as a stenographer but

he has been paid pay-scale of clerk.   

(7) 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.   C.M.W.P.

No.6637 of 1992 shall stand restored to its original number.

We request the High Court to afford sufficient time to the

appellant  to  file  additional  counter  affidavit  and  after

affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties

dispose of the matter at an early date preferably within a

period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this

Order.   No costs.

.........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

.........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 18, 2019.