Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 54973 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1104 (20 April 2005)

 

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. 32

               Writ Petition No. 54973 of2004.

Surendra Pratap Singh                                      Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of   U.P. & others                                     Respondents.

       

                                  ******************

Hon. Vikram Nath, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was selected and appointed on the post of Co-operative Inspector-II/Assistant Development Officer, respondents have illegally not promoted him and promoted his junior without any justification. He made a representation, which was not considered whereupon petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20530 of 2004 (Surendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. through its Secretary Co-operative U.P. Lucknow). The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 24.05.2004 with the direction that the petitioner shall make a fresh representation before Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow (respondent no. 2), and the said representation may be decided after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The representation was submitted along with copy of the direction of this Court, whereupon the impugned order dated 02.09.2004 was passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on two grounds firstly that on account of pending departmental proceedings initiated on 26.06.2004 against the petitioner the case of the petitioner for promotion cannot be considered and secondly that at the time of consideration the service record of petitioner was not completed.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has illegally not been given promotion in the year 2000 and had, therefore, claimed promotion w. e. f. 30.06.2000, the date on which juniors in his cadre have been promoted to the post of Co-operative Inspector-I and in the circumstances the reason given in the impugned order that on account of proceedings having been initiated in the year 2004 cannot be a ground to reject his claim for promotion in the year 2000. It is further contended that departmental proceedings alleged to have been initiated on 26.06.2004 are an out come of annoyance as the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court for redressal of his grievance.  The other ground in the impugned order that when promotions were made in the year 2000 service record of the petitioner was incomplete and therefore, he was not considered also cannot be valid ground to deny promotion to the petitioner if, he was otherwise suitable. It is the duty of the department/ state to maintain complete service records and not of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 02.09.2004 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The respondent no. 2 Registrar Co-operative Societies, Lucknow is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and in case, if on the relevant date of consideration of promotion, the petitioner is found suitable appropriate orders for promotion with consequential benefits would be passed in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.09. 2004 passerby Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. is set aside.

Dated: 20.04.2005.

v.k.updh. (v-72)


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.