Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UPENDRA NATH PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Upendra Nath Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 8238 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 5846 (9 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.22.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  8238  of  1999.

Upendra Nath Pandey ........... Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. & others ........... Respondents.

:::::::::::

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.2 and 3 to give selection grade and super selection grade to the petitioner on the basis of his working since 16.1.1976. A further writ of mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents to pay the entire balance of salary and promote the petitioner in accordance with law.

Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that petitioner was initially engaged as seasonal collection on 16th November, 1976. His case further is that he filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 12608 of 1990 in which writ petition this High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for giving regular appointment as Collection Amin. The said representation of the petitioner has been rejected on 28.8.1990. The petitioner again approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 25855 of 1990 and this Court vide order dated 16th October, 1992 directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Collection Amin. In pursuance of the order of this Court an order was passed by the respondents on 14th November, 1992 appointing the petitioner as regular Collection Amin. The petitioner thereafter is working as regular collection amin. The petitioner in this writ petition, in paragraphs 12 and 13, as given the reference of four collection amins, namely, Shyam Narain, Ram Bahal, Jitendra Singh and Brij Raj who claimed to have been regularised prior to the petitioner. It has further been stated that one Girish Chandra Pandey has been posted as Naib Tahsildar. The petitioner claimed that his period of working as seasonal collection amin be added for grant of selection grade and super selection grade. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the petitioner has been appointed as regular collection amin in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16th October, 1992. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that working of the petitioner prior to his regularisation cannot be added since the said period was a period in which the petitioner was working as seasonal collection amin. It has further been stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that persons whose names are mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition were regularised prior to the petitioner and they are senior to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that period of working of the petitioner as seasonal collection amin is liable to be added in his working as regular collection amin. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1990)2 UPLBEC 833; Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

There is no dispute between the parties that petitioner prior to 14th November, 1992 was working as seasonal collection amin. The petitioner himself has stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that he was appointed as seasonal collection amin on 16.11.1976. The petitioner was given regular appointment as collection amin in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16th October, 1992 with effect from 14th November, 1992. According to U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 35% vacancies of regular collection amin are to be filled up from amongst the seasonal collection amins on the basis of selection. The petitioner having been appointed as regular collection amin on 14th November, 1992 his working as seasonal collection amin prior to the said date cannot be added or counted towards his working as regular collection amin. The seasonal collection amin is appointed to work in a particular season, i.e., Kharif and Rabi, for a limited period in a year and as the working of the seasonal collection amin is entirely different from regular collection amin, the period of working as seasonal collection amin cannot be added in working of regular collection amin. The petitioner was entitled to reckon his seniority as regular collection amin only from the date when he was appointed as regular collection amin, i.e., 14th November, 1992. According to U.P. Government Servant (Seniority) Rules, 1991 the seniority of a Government employee is reckoned from the date of his substantive appointment.

The judgment of the Apex Court relied by counsel for the petitioner in Direct Recruit's case (supra)  has no application in the facts of the present case. In the said case the period of ad hoc appointment following the procedure laid down in the rules followed by regularisation was held to be entitled for purposes of seniority. The present is not a case of ad hoc appointment. The present is not the case of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as collection amin, rather his appointment was made as a seasonal collection amin prior to 14th November, 1992. The petitioner cannot take benefit of the above judgment of the Apex Court. The prayer of the petitioner that his period of working as seasonal collection amin be added for purposes of selection grade and super selection grade cannot be granted nor the said period can be considered for grant of promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for promotion according to his period of working as regular selection amin.

Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that period of seasonal working of the persons whose names have been mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition have been added while counting their regular service. The said argument cannot be accepted. Neither any material has been brought on the record that to show that period of their seasonal working has been added in their regular service nor under law such period can be added for the purposes of giving selection grade and super selection grade. The petitioner cannot take any benefit on the basis of the above submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Annexure SA-4 is only a list of 27 seasonal collection amins showing their date of first appointment. From the list it does not appear as to when the list was prepared and for what purpose. The said list cannot be treated to a seniority list nor the said list can indicate that period of seasonal working as collection amin has been added in the period of working as regular collection amin for grant of selection grade or super selection grade. The said document also do not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner.

Subject to above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated 9.3.2006.

Rakesh


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.