High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Amrit Lal Sonkar v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 16797 of 1994  RD-AH 6918 (30 March 2006)
Writ Petition No.16797 of 1994
Amrit Lal Sonkar. Petitioner.
State of U.P. and 3 others. Respondents.
Writ Petition No.12300 of 1991
Amrit Lal Sonkar. Petitioner.
District Magistrate, Allahabad and 2 others. Respondents.
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J
Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J
These two writ petitions are related and connected with each other containing same facts and law point involved, therefore, they are being disposed of together by a common judgement. The order is passed in leading Writ Petition No.16797 of 1994.
We have heard Sri A.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. K Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Standing counsel for the State and perused the records.
Admittedly, the petitioner Amrit Lal Sonkar and respondent no.4 Shyama Charan were appointed as Collection Amins in the revenue department, Allahabad. The petitioner was appointed on 31.8.1974 and he was confirmed on said post on 1.9.1977. The respondent no.4, Shyama Charan was appointed on same post on 1.1.1976 and confirmed on said post on 1.2.1979. In due course of time, the petitioner was promoted in stop-gap-arrangement as Naib Tehsildar and remained working on said post for a long period. The promotion order was being given effect for six weeks and it was continuously being extended.
A new development took place when the revenue authorities promoted respondent no.4 vide order dated 6.4.1994 on the post of Tehsildar in officiating capacity. This fact is not disputed that actually by virtue of original appointment, the petitioner was senior to respondent no.4. Some disputes arose in the past also and some writ petitions were filed by the present petitioner and other also and by the intervention of the Court, confirmation and seniority etc. were decided for the post of Collection Amins only. The record shows that the seniority of the petitioner in promoted cadre has yet not been decided. This is also not clear from the record that on what ground, the petitioner was passed over for promotion of Tehsildar. The reasons for the same were also not disclosed. The respondent no.4 is working on the post of Tehsildar in officiating capacity.
In such circumstances, there is nothing on records to decide seniority or promotion matter of the petitioner by this Court. These questions are to be decided by the revenue authorities concerned.
In light of above, it is desirable that the revenue authorities be given direction to decide controversy in question.
Accordingly, these writ petition are finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall approach the authorities concerned alongwith representation within a month, from the date of passing of this order regarding fixation of his seniority, confirmation on the post of Naib Tehskildar and promotion on the post of Tehsildar and the respondents shall decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from its presentation before them by passing a clear and speaking order regarding all the three controversies referred to above, after hearing aggrieved and affected parties concerned.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.