High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bharat Lal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 34708 of 2007  RD-AH 13164 (31 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34708 of 2007
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner claims that he had been appointed as Supervisor in Harijan and Samaj Kalyan Vibhag on 23.11.1968; he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent on 31.06.1975, and further claims that he was regularized on 14.05.1979. Petitioner submits that combined seniority list of Assistant Superintendents and Probation Officers was published by the department, wherein name of petitioner found place at serial No.24, whereas Baldeo Shukla, Gyannendrado Saxena, Pradeep Kumar Tandon, Rajendra Singh Rana and Kumari Manorama were placed at serial Nos. 25, 27, 39, 40,41 and 42 respectively. Petitioner has contended that since Baldeo Shukla, Gyannendrado Saxena, who were juniors to petitioner being placed at serial Nos. 25 and 27 in the seniority list, were promoted on 21.02.1983, he filed writ petition No.4912 of 1990, wherein directives were issued to consider the case of petitioner. Against said order, Special Appeal had been preferred, which was decided by order dated 23.02.2000, and the cost imposed was struck down. Pursuant to directives issued by this Court, claim of petitioner was considered by Director, Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Anubhag, and by means of the same pensionary benefits were extended along with notional promotion, as petitioner had already been superannuated in the year 1999. Petitioner again represented for consideration of his claim in the light of the Government Order dated 25.06.1984, which was again rejected on 23.04.2007. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that petitioner was entitled for entire benefits and the authorities have clearly erred in law in not extending the said benefits, ignoring the mandate of Government Order dated 25.06.1984.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that claim of petitioner has already been adjudicated as per directives issued by this Court, as such no interference is required.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that this Court vide judgment passed in writ petition No.4912 of 1990, Bharat Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, had held that petitioner is entitled to be promoted on higher post in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent/Probation Officer in the department, and further directives were issued and respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion similar to that as was given to his juniors, Baldeo Shukla and Gyannendrado Saxena. It was also mentioned that in case vacancies are not available, to accommodate the petitioner, junior most incumbent who has been given ad hoc promotion is liable to reverted in order to accommodate the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the said order that as petitioner has been denied of promotion since 1984 and 1988 without any justifiable reason, he is liable to be compensated, and as such cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed to compensate him for the monetary loss suffered by him. Against the said order Special Appeal had been filed and Special Appeal Bench of this Court in Special Appeal, which was decided on 23.02.2002, mentioned that no interference was required in the impugned orders as directive was only to consider the claim of petitioner and imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- to compensate the petitioner was held to be unjustified and in case claim of petitioner was allowed by the authorities, then in that event, it was clearly and categorically mentioned that petitioner may be compensated by raising pension with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted. Pursuant to this order notional promotion has been accorded to petitioner from the date his juniors were accorded promotion and fixation has also been made in terms of Rule 22B of the Fundamental Rules. Thus, conscious decision has been taken giving notional promotion to petitioner and his salary has also been fixed accordingly, as his juniors were given under Rule 22B of the Fundamental Rules, and benefit in pension is there, as entire period has been clubbed, and pension amount has been raised. Said action cannot be said to be unjustifiable action. Even this Court was conscious of this fact that such relief cannot be accorded, promotion was directed to be considered and by way of compensation Rs.10,000/- was sought to be awarded at the first instance, which was set aside in appeal with observation that petitioner may be compensated by the pension raised with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The decision taken by the authority concerned is clearly in consonance with the aforesaid line, and the view taken, thus, cannot be faulted.
Consequently, writ petition lacks substance, and same is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.