Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KESHAV PRASAD LAL versus CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER, LKO. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Keshav Prasad Lal v. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Another - WRIT - A No. 37314 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 5346 (26 March 2007)

 

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.24

Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.  37314 of   2000

Keshav Prasad Lal  ..............................................................    Petitioner

Versus

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.

D/-26.3.2007

SCS      


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.