Judgment reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 211 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 10880 of 1998) Sri Richpal Singh S/o Chaudhary Baljeet Singh R/o Nauchandi Ground Chitrakoot Colony, House No. 100 Near Prabhat Press, District Meerut ………….Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar. ………..Respondents. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.1997 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request has been declined to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 01.11.1975 to 21.09.1977. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to pay the difference of pay for the period from 22.09.1977 to 10.07.1985 and also to pay salary of the Selection Grade to him. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Inspector on 15.02.1954 in Tarai State Farm in pay scale of Rs. 75-120. The same 2 got revised to Rs. 160-280 and thereafter to Rs. 280-450. In the year 1961, the said Tarai State Farm, merged with U.P. Agriculture and Research Centre, which later on was designated as Govind Ballabh Pant, Agriculture and Technology University (respondent). The petitioner’s services got merged with said university. In the year 1967, he was posted as Manager of U.P. Agriculture Consumers Cooperative Society and was given pay scale of Rs. 250 to 500, which was later on revised as Rs. 300-900. In pursuance to the resolution dated 04.07.1970, passed by Board of Management, vide Vice Chancellor order dated 29.07.1971, the petitioner’s service got regularized in the University. However, later on the petitioners services were terminated vide order dated 01.11.1975, treating his services to be that of Society. It appears that the petitioner challenged the order of termination on the judicial side by filing a civil suit. Meanwhile, on the representation of the petitioner, and he was re-instated back in the service on 22.09.1977, as Block Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 280-460. The petitioner’s case is that he is wrongly given lower pay scale on re-instatement. He filed a writ petition No. 2020 of 1994 before Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of on 09.02.1984 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner made fresh representation dated 11.07.1985 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), wherein the claim of back wages of the petitioner was denied but he was given revised pay scale of Rs. 850-1720. The petitioner’s case is that he is not only entitled to the salary for break period, which had also been regularized after his reinstatement but also the dues to the pay after the period of 3 his reinstatement till 11.07.1985. The petitioner has further claimed selection grade. 4. The respondent/university, contested the writ petition and filed its counter affidavit in which the contents of the writ petition relating to the period prior to 01.11.1975 are not denied. However, as to the period of 01.11.1975 to 22.09.1977, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for the period between his termination and reinstatement in the service. The reinstatement was made without back wages. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that no work was taken for said period from the petitioner. As to the difference of salary period from 22.09.1977 to 10.07.1985, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the reasons are mentioned in the order dated 11.07.1985 that the petitioner had given an undertaking in writing that he would not claim the revised pay scale prior to order dated 11.07.1984, as such he cannot claim the salary for said period. As to the selection grade, the respondent has taken plea that the petitioner had not qualified ten years continues service required for selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1200. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found true that the petitioner’s reinstatement was not with the back wages nor had he worked during the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The break appears to have been regularized only for the purposes of pension and not for the salary. As far as the selection grade is concerned, the petitioner could not show that how he is entitled to the 4 selection grade when he has not completed ten years continuous service on a particular scale i.e. Rs. 550-1200 (revised pay scale Rs. 850-1720). However, the respondent who has taken the plea that the difference of pay was not given to the petitioner from the date of reinstatement i.e. 22.09.1977 to 10.07.1985, as the petitioner had given undertaking in writing not to claim the same, when his representation for revised pay scale was considered vide order dated 11.07.1985(Annexure-4). The petitioner has specifically denied in the rejoinder affidavit, having given any such undertaking. The respondent could not show any written undertaking given by the petitioner to them. As such, the reason to deny the difference of pay for the period from 22.09.1977 to 10.07.1985 cannot be said to be just, proper and lawful rather by withholding difference of pay for said period, the petitioner has been deprived of his right and entitlement to the salary of the revised scale. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons, as discussed above, the writ petition is partly allowed only for the difference of pay for the period 22.09.1977 to 10.07.1985. However, the relief in respect of salary for period from 01.11.1975 to 21.09.1977 and for the selection grade, is refused and writ petition is dismissed to that extent. No order as to costs. Dt. 27.11.2006 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) S