Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court has filed a petition regarding the payment of salary for the training (training ) period of police inspectors and inspectors posted in various zones of the state and the benefit of the Seventh Pay Commission, including adding this period to the service and providing increment, Additional Director General of Police, Bhawan of the state government And Kalyan, DGP, Head Quarter Uttar Pradesh Lucknow has been directed to pass the order in two months. This order has been passed by Justice Saral Srivastava on the petitions filed by the inspectors and police inspectors posted in different districts of Meerut Zone, Agra Zone, Prayagraj Zone, Gorakhpur Zone, Kanpur Zone, Bareilly Zone, and Varanasi Zone of Uttar Pradesh. The inspectors and inspectors had filed separate group-wise petitions in the High Court regarding the payment of salary for the period of their training and for providing increment by adding this period to their service.
The petitions were filed on behalf of Varun Kumar Sharma and 75 others, Pramod Kumar Ram and 98 others and Swati Sharma and 24 others. Senior advocate Vijay Gautam, appearing in the court on behalf of police inspectors and inspectors, said that the High Court has given a decision in the case of Alok Kumar Singh and others that during the period of training of inspectors and inspectors, the mandate dated 16 September 1965 and the mandate Salary for the training period will be given with reference to November 3, 1979. It was said that the SLP of the state government has also been rejected by the Supreme Court. The advocate said that by the order of March 29, 2022, the government has given permission to give salary to other inspectors and inspectors at par with the petitioners for the training period, while the petitioners are being discriminated against.
It was said in the petition that in the case of Lalbabu Shukla and others, the High Court has propounded the law that promotional pay scale and increment will be provided to police personnel by adding training period. The petitioners were given stipend per month during the training period, while full salary and allowance should have been given for this period, which was not done. Not only this, the period of training period was not added to the period of service.