Parawise Comments as Part of Counter Affidavit in WRIT A 8211 of 2023

1. Para 1 does not require any comment.

2. In reply to para 2 and 3, it is stated that the judgement dated 16.03.2023 with respect
to Review Petition No. 243 of 2021 categorically states in paragraph 24 as given
under:-
"Consequently, in the facts of the present case and considering the facts and
circumstances as well as financial implications, it is hereby provided that the
judgement of learned Single Judge affirmed by the Division Bench will hold good for
the writ petitioners only and will not be considered as a judgement in rem nor a
binding precedent as the issues involved is left open to be decided in an appropriate
case and all the questions of law are left open to be agitated by the State
Government in the appropriate case."
Therefore, the judgement dated 15.01.2013 passed by Learned Single Judge and
affirmed by Division Bench does not hold good for the Petitioner. As a consequence,
Petitioner's claim for promotional pay scale based on the above mentioned
judgement too does not hold ground.
It is further stated that orders dated 22.05.2023 and 24.05.2023 are based on the
above mentioned judgement.

3. That in reply of paragraph 4,5 and 6, it is stated that the judgement dated 09.08.2000
and consequentially passed order dated 27.03.2000 are not applicable to the facts of
WRIT A 8211 of 2023.
The reasoning is that the above mentioned judgement is not with respect to
collection amins of Trade Tax Department and Petitioner is a collection amin of Trade
Tax Department. This fact has been accepted by Petitioner in para 21 of Writ Petition
8211 of 2023 filed along with the affidavit.
The order dated 27.03.2006 was subject to final decision in Special Appeal No.
83 of 2001. The final decision in Special Appeal No. 83 of 2001 did not accept the Rs
1400-2300 grade pay scale. This fact is in addition to the above mentioned fact that
order dated 27.03.2006 is not applicable to the Writ Petition 8211 of 2023.
The order dated 27.06.2006 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Administration),
Trade Tax, Noida therefore is wrongly based on judgement dated 09.08.2000 and
consequentially passed order dated 27.03.2000.
4. Para 7 and 8 consist of factual statements. Therefore, no comments are required.
5. Para 9 is incomplete factual statement. Para 9 must be read with para 11. Order
dated 02.03.2000 was amended by order dated 10.03.2023. This amendment
granted promotional pay to the Petitioner after completion of 16 years of service. The
fact related to amendment is mentioned in para 11.
6. That in reply of para 10, it is stated that 14 वर्ष mentioned in orders dated 02.03.2000
and 10.03.2000 are typographical error. It should be read as 16 years.
(An affidavit to this effect would be required from the department)
7. That in reply of para 12 and 14,it is stated that Petitioner joined as a collection amin
with Trade Tax Department. Henceforth he has throughout remained an employee of
the Trade Tax Department. The judgement dated 15.01.2013 with respect to Writ A
19438 of 2008 is factually and materially not related to Writ A 8211 of 2023 as the
Petitioner was neither an employee of Revenue Department nor was ever sent to
 Trade Tax Department on deputation. As a consequence, order dated 27.03.2006 is
not applicable to the Petitioner.
8. Para 13 consist of factual statement but no annexure has been attached to support
the factual statement. No further comments are required in para 13.
9. That in reply to para 15, it is stated in Clause 3 and 4 of Government Order dated
17.10.1985 as following,
" (3) ऐसे पद धारको को संबधिं त पद पर नियमित है और जिन्होंने कुल 16 वर्ष की सेवा में 6 वर्ष
की सेवा सिलेक्शन ग्रेड में अनिवार्य है । संतोष जनक से परू ी करो प्रोन्नति का अगला वेतनमान
वैयक्तिक रूप से स्वीकृत किए जाएं। संबधि ं त पदार्थों को पदोन्नति का अगला वेतनमान स्वीकृत
करने में सावधानी बढ़ती जाए और जिन मामलों में स्थिति स्पष्ट ना हो उन्हें आवश्यकता अनस ु ार
शासन को संदर्भित कर वित्त विभाग का परामर्श प्राप्त किया जाए।
(4) उक्त प्रस्तर (3) के अधीन ऐसे पदधारको को जिन्हें संबधि ं त सेवा संपर्क में पदोन्नति का पद
उपलब्ध न हो और जिन्होंने उन 16 वर्षों की सेवा को जिनमे 6 वर्ष की सेवा सिलेक्शन ग्रेड में
अनिवार्य है संतोषजनक रूप से परू ी कर ली हो उनके साधारण वेतनमान से अगला वेतनमान स्वीकृत
कर दिया जाए।"
Petitioner joined Trade Tax Department on 04.11.1977 and has completed 16
years of service which includes 6 years in selection grade on 05.11.1993. Therefore
in pursuance of clause 3 and 4, Petitioner was granted the next payment grade of Rs
1200-2040 vide order dated 02.03.2000 and amended order dated 10.03.2000.
10. That in reply to para 16,it is stated that Petitioner is entitled to next payment grade of
Rs 1200-2040 vide order dated 02.03.2000 and amended order dated 10.03.2000.
There is no material fact to show that Petitioner was entitled for payment grade of Rs
1400-2300 after completion of 14 years of service.
11. That in reply to para 17,18,19,20 and 21 it is stated that Judgements with respect to
Writ A 19438 of 2008, Writ A 23780 of 2014 and Special Appeal 756 of 2020 are not
material to Writ Petition A 8211 of 2023.
Petitioner joined as a collection amin with Trade Tax Department. Henceforth he
has throughout remained an employee of the Trade Tax Department. The
judgements mentioned above are factually and materially not related to Writ A 8211
of 2023 as the Petitioner was neither an employee of Revenue Department nor was
ever sent to Trade Tax Department on deputation. As a consequence, Petitioner
cannot be entitled to benefits arising to parties of the above mentioned Writs and
Special Appeal.
Government Orders dated 17.10.1985 and 02.12.2000 have been complied with
by the Trade Tax Department in applying promotional pay scale with respect to the
Petitioner.

Please Note: Appropriate Annexures need to be attached with this counter affidavit.