Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA SINGH versus U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORP. LTD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Singh v. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd And Others - WRIT - A No. 2288 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1598 (8 July 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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.   2288 of 2005

Rajendra Singh     Vs.      U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner was initially engaged as a jeep driver on 1.1.1980 as a muster roll employee. He was kept in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.4.1987 and was regularized in service with effect from 1.3.1998. The petitioner claims that on completion of five years of service he ought to have been kept in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985 and thereafter should have been regularized in service on completion of 16 years with effect from 1.1.1996 and ought to have been given all consequential benefits. Since the respondent-authorities were not granting such benefits to the petitioner, he filed writ petition no. 8544 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 1.3.2004 with the direction that the representation of the petitioner in this regard, which may be filed before the Managing Director of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., may be decided within a period of three months. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation which had been decided on 6.8.2004. Prior to the said decision on the representation of the petitioner, the Accounts Officer/Controller of the Corporation had issued an office order treating the petitioner to have been taken in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.4.1987 and to have been regularized in service with effect from 1.3.1998. Thereafter by an order dated 15.11.2004 passed by Respondent no.4 Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation, on the basis of the order/calculation dated 4.8.2004 certain recoveries are sought to be made from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 4.8.2004, 6.8.2004 and 15.11.2004 passed by Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Further prayers have been made for a direction to the respondents not to make any recovery on the basis of the impugned order/calculation dated 4.8.2004 and also commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from 1.7.2004 to 31.12.2004 which has been withheld by the respondents.

I have heard Sri N. K. Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M. K. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

 By the impugned order dated 6.8.2004 the only ground for not having kept the petitioner in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985 is that there were some obstructions during the period of his initial five year service. No specific instance of any obstruction have either been given in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit. The specific contention of the petitioner is that having joined as a muster roll on 1.1.1980 and having worked continuously without any interruption for five years, he was entitled to be kept in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985 as provided under the rules governing his service. Specific averments to that effect have been made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, to which only a vague reply has been given in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. In the absence of there being any specific ground for not placing the petitioner in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985, when the petitioner had admittedly completed five years of service as a muster roll employee, the impugned order dated 6.8.2004 cannot be justified. As such the petitioner would be entitled to be treated in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985 instead of 1.4.1987, from which date the respondents have actually treated the petitioner in group ''B' grade.

The petitioner further contends that as per the rules he ought to have been regularized in service with effect from 1.1.1996 instead of 1.3.1998. The grounds on which the petitioner claims such regularization in service is that the rules provide that the petitioner would be regularized in service on completion of 16 years of service. Since the respondents have not been able to justify in any manner as to why they have treated the petitioner to be in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.4.1987 whereas he would be entitled to the same with effect from 1.1.1985, in my view his regularization in service with effect from 1.3.1998 needs to be considered afresh and the recovery sought to be made from the petitioner on the basis of the order/calculation dated 4.8.2004 which is based on his date of placement in group ''B' grade and confirmation in service is liable to be quashed.

The other decision taken by the Respondent no.3 vide order dated 6.8.2004 are also based on the petitioner having been taken in group B' grade with effect from 1.4.1987 and as such the entire order dated 6.8.2004 is also liable to be quashed.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances the orders dated 4.8.2004, 6.8.2004 and 15.11.2004 passed by Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively are hereby quashed. The Respondent no.3 Manager (Karmik-III) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove and after treating the petitioner to have been kept in group ''B' grade with effect from 1.1.1985 instead of 1.4.1987. The said decision shall be taken by the Respondent no.3 as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Respondent no.3.

The writ petition stands allowed with cost. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court on two occasions, the cost assessed by this Court is Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) which shall be paid to the petitioner within three weeks.

Dt/- 8.7.2005

dps


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.