High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Keshav Prasad Lal v. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Another - WRIT - A No. 37314 of 2000  RD-AH 5346 (26 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37314 of 2000
Keshav Prasad Lal .............................................................. Petitioner
Consolidation Commissioner, ........................... Respondents
State of U.P. & another
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.5.2000. The petitioner has been permitted to amend the writ petition by adding the relief seeking mandamus directing the respondents to pay all arrears of salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner treating him to be in regular service as Lekhpal with effect from 3.9.1981 and further writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all post retiral benefits including pension and leave encashment.
Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the writ petition are;
That the petitioner was appointed initially in stop gap arrangement as Lekhpal in the year 1979. The petitioner worked for short period in different spells as detailed in Annexure-1 to the writ petition issued by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Basti. The order dated 9.7.1980 Annexure-3 to the writ petition has been filed which mentions that the officiating appointment of the petitioner was terminated. A reference has been made to the circular of the Consolidation Commissioner dated 7.11.1985 providing that those persons who have been terminated on account of reduction of post, be given preference in the appointment. It appears that the petitioner has submitted some representation claiming for regular appointment on which representation the petitioner the Additional District Magistrate, Basti on 3.8.1991 took the view that in future short term vacancy or regular vacancy the petitioner be absorbed. The petitioner was again given short term appointment for 89 days on 17.4.1993. Petitioner thereafter filed writ petition No. 16650 of 1993 which was disposed of by this Court on 8.3.1999 directing the respondents to consider the case of noticing the fact that some of his juniors had been absorbed. After the order of this Court dated 8.3.1999 petitioner has been given appointment on 30.11.1999, copy of which order has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter continued to work and attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2001. It appears that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation claimed that the petitioner be paid salary from 3.9.1981 treating him to be working regularly since 3.9.1981. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation holding that without appointment there is no case for payment of salary. This writ petition has been filed against the said order dated 27.5.2000 refusing to pay salary.
The learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Anita Tripathi challenging the impugned order contended that the petitioner was entitled for regular appointment and the respondents committed error in not appointing the petitioner on regular basis whereas several juniors to the petitioner, as has been mentioned in the letter of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 11.10.1999, were appointed. The petitioner's counsel contended that there is no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner was not given regular appointment hence he was entitled to be treated as regularly appointed Lekhpal with effect from 3.9.1981 and was entitled for full salary and all other consequential benefits.
I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
From the certificate Annexure-1 to the writ petition filed by the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner's appointment for different periods from 1979 to 1986 was for short spells in short term officiating arrangement. The engagement of the petitioner was short term engagement as clearly mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ petition itself. The circular of the Consolidation Commissioner on which the petitioner has much relied, was a circular dated 7.11.1985 providing for giving preference in the appointment of those candidates who were terminated on account of reduction in posts. The petitioner has earlier came to this Court and this Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in writ petition No. 16650 of 1993. The writ petition was disposed of on 8.3.1999. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was given appointment on 30.11.1999 and continued to function till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. This Court while deciding the writ petition on 8.3.1999 did not allow the relief treating the petitioner as regularly appointed from 1981 or entitled for salary with effect from 3.9.1981. The circular of Commissioner only mentions that when the proceedings for appointment is taken on the post of Lekhpal , the persons who have been terminated on account of reduction of post be given preference. It clearly mentioned that all those persons had to go through the process of recruitment. No case is made out that in any particular recruitment the petitioner was a candidate and was not given due preference hence on the basis of the aforesaid circular the petitioner cannot be treated to be regularly appointed from 3.9.1981 or entitled to salary from 3.9.1981.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.