High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Zila Parishad ,Mirzapur v. U.P.P.S.T - WRIT - A No. 8740 of 1982  RD-AH 8110 (30 April 2007)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8740 of 1982
The Zila Parishad, Mirzapur and others
The U.P. Public Service Tribunal, III, Lucknow and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.5.1982 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") partly allowing the claim petition of the respondent no. 3.
The facts in brief are that the respondent no. 3 was appointed as Tax Collector vide order dated 23.12.1971 passed by Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad, Mirzapur and was promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector on 3.6.1972. He was placed under suspension on 6.8.1975 which was withdrawn on 23.8.1975 and thereafter Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad passed order dated 30.9.1975 terminating him. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent no. 3 filed Claim Petition No. 532 of 1978 before the Tribunal which has been allowed vide order impugned in this writ petition setting aside the order of termination and directing that the respondent no. 2 shall be treated to have been reverted to the post of Tax Collector from which he had been promoted as Revenue Inspector and shall be entitled to get salary for the post of Tax Collector w.e.f. 1.10.1975 till the post of Tax Collector is abolished or till his services on that post are terminated in accordance with law.
The petitioners contended that there were seven posts of Tax Collectors in the year 1971 against which seven persons namely, Sri Satya Narain Lal, Sri Jai Deo Dubey, Sri Laxmi Nand Sharma, Sri B.N. Sinha, Sri Prem Narain, Sri Raghunath Prasad and Sri A.N. Bhatt were already working. In the year 1971 itself, four temporary posts of Revenue Inspectors and one post of Revenue Superintendent were sanctioned. Sri A.N. Bhatt was appointed as Revenue Inspector. On the remaining three posts of Revenue Inspectors, Sri Shiv Ram Singh, Sri Prem Chandra Tewari and Sri Markandey Dubey who were working as second grade clerk were promoted. On the vacancy of Sri A.N. Bhatt caused on the post of Tax Collector, respondent no. 3 was appointed on purely ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, Sri Shiv Ram Singh working as Revenue Inspector was promoted as Revenue Superintendent causing a vacancy on the post of Revenue Inspector. Though the respondent no. 3 did not fulfill qualifications for the post of Revenue Inspector yet he was appointed as Revenue Inspector on the said vacancy. After promotion of respondent no. 3, as Revenue Inspector, in the resultant vacancy on the post of Tax Collector, one Sri Raj Narain was appointed. Subsequently, four posts of Revenue Inspectors, four posts of Peon and one post of Revenue Superintendent were abolished resulting in reversion of the three incumbents who were promoted from the post of second grade clerk to Revenue Inspector to their original post and also of Sri A.N. Bhatt to his post of Tax Collector. The services of respondent no. 3 and Sri Raj Narain were accordingly terminated due to lack of vacancy. Thus there was no illegality in termination of respondent no. 3 but the Tribunal has erred in law by failing to consider this aspect of the matter.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that the petitioners could not demonstrate before the Tribunal that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Tax Collector was in resultant vacancy of Sri A.N. Bhatt after his promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector. In the absence of any material and pleadings the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the post of Revenue Inspector on which the respondent no. 3 was promoted was abolished hence he was entitled to be reverted to the post of Tax Collector whereon he was appointed in his own rights and was entitled to continue. The petitioners have not placed any material on record before this Court also to contradict the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal except of making bare averments which have been denied by the respondent no. 3. The document to support their pleading has not been placed on record though it must be in possession of the petitioners. In the absence of any material we are not inclined to disturb a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal.
In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.