Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAUSHAL KUMAR SHARMA versus COMMISSINER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kaushal Kumar Sharma v. Commissiner & Others - WRIT - A No. 3699 of 1985 [2006] RD-AH 7211 (4 April 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. 9.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3699 of 1985.

Sri Kaushal Kumar Sharma and others ...    Petitioners

Versus

Commissioner, Moradabad and others ...     Respondnts.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri H.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

The restoration application along with delay condonation application has come up for hearing.  The cause shown is sufficient.  The counsel for the petitioners has filed his Vakalatnama but his name was not shown in the cause list.  The delay condonation application as well as restoration application are allowed.  The writ petition is restored to its original number and has been heard.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners were serving as clerks in the department of Food and Civil Supplies since 1973.  It is alleged that the seniority list was prepared in 1991 in which they were  shown as senior and consequently ad hoc promotions were given on 24.2.1992.  The regular selection under U.P. Food and Civil Supply (  Supply Branch) Clerks Service Rules took place in 1984 by the Committee on the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.  The petitioners were not promoted and instead junior to them were offered promotion.  Aggrieved, the petitioners had filed this writ petition.

In the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioners have been given adhoc promotion and the Selection Committee

2

considered the promotions in accordance with the Rules in which the petitioners were not found suitable.  Almost 20 years have passed since the interim orders were granted by this Court on 7.5.1985, staying the operation of the order dated 8.1.1985 (annexure-6).  It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners served on the post on which they were given promotions and have received further promotion in the department and that the petitioner no. 2 was transferred to Uttaranchal after the State of Uttaranchal was carved out  under U.P. Re-Organization Rules, 1999.  Now, that the petitioners have been granted further promotions and the petitioner no 2   has been transferred to the State of Uttaranchal, it would be extremely harsh and unjust to withdraw the benefits after almost two decades.  

The writ petition is consequently disposed of with the directions that the benefits granted to the petitioners under the interim orders of this Court dated 26.3.1985, shall not be withdrawn, and that the petitioners who have been promoted further shall not be reverted.  This order has been passed only  to serve justice and equity to which the petitioners are entitled by passage of such a long time in deciding the matter.  This order, however,  shall not be treated as precedent in other cases.

Dt. 4.4.2006.

BM/-


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.