Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1812 of 2001 (Old No. 17728 of 2000). Yash Pal Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, R/o 281, Sunderbala, Post-Raipur, District-Dehradun. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The Director, Training and Employment U.P., Lucknow, 2. The Principal Secretary, Labour, U.P., Lucknow. …… Respondents Sri P.S. Adhikari, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date: March 20, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.01.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay 18% penal interest over the arrears of salary to the petitioner due since 01.07.1979 to 31.03.1994 and thereafter over the post retiral benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1994 to upto date. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 120-300 in Government Industrial and Technical Institute on 04.12.1962. He was retired from service on 31.03.1994. In the year 1965 the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 150-350. In the year 1972 the first pay commission recommended the pay scale of Rs. 300-500 to all L.T. grade teachers including the teachers working in Government Industrial and Technical Institute. In September 1972 the petitioner’s basic pay was fixed at Rs.422/-. After the 2nd pay commission the State Government sanctioned pay scale of Rs. 515-860 to the teachers in Government Industrial and Technical Institute since 01.07.1979 whereas pay scale of Rs. 540-910 was sanctioned to L.T. grade teachers of recognized and aided institutions, Government Colleges and the institutions run by the Harijan Samaj Kalyan Vibhag. The other L.T. grade teachers were given selection grade of Rs. 740-1090 since 01.07.1979 but the petitioner and other L.T. grade teachers working in Industrial and Technical Institutes had not given any selection grade. The State Government, vide its order dated 23.12.1983 decided that the teachers working in Industrial and Technical Institutes were not entitled to pay scale of L.T. grade teachers of Language and Science teachers of airded institutions, Government Colleges and Institutions run by Harijan and Samaj Kalyan Vibhag. Against the said order dated 23.12.1983 passed by the State Government, the petitioner and other teachers working in Industrial and Technical Institutes filed writ petition, bearing No. 5510 of 1984 before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was allowed on 09.04.1996 and the petitioners were given selection grade since 01.07.1979. The arrears of revised pay scale have already been paid to the petitioner on 08.07.1999. 3. The petitioner filed this petition claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of arrears which he had already received on 08.07.1999 on the ground that in the normal course under the prescribed rules the interest is paid over the arrears of salary to the employees but the respondent No. 1 denied the same, vide impugned order dated 12.01.2000 which is bad and arbitrary. 4. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has already been sanctioned the pay scale to which he was entitled and he has been paid his salary accordingly time to time. After his retirement, he has also been sanctioned the pension grade and other service benefits to which he was entitled well in time. The petitioner has been sanctioned and paid the entire amounts as per the Court’s order dated 09.04.1996. 5. I have perused the material on record. There is no mention in the Court’s order dated 09.04.1996 about the interest on the amount of arrears payable to the petitioner. The record reveals that there is no fault on the part of the respondents. The delay in payment of arrears of salary, if any caused to the petitioner, was not intentional and deliberate. Further the petitioner has been sanctioned the pay scale to which he was entitled and he has been paid his salary accordingly time to time. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief as has been claimed by him in this petition. 6. The petition is devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly. (P.C. Verma, J.) 20.03.2008 P.Singh