Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


L.P. Srivastava v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal And Others - WRIT - A No. 27154 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 584 (1 March 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).




L.P. Srivastava          .......... Petitioner


The U.P. State Public Services Tribunal  & Ors.  .......    Respondents

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14th April, 2004 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and for a direction upon the respondents to give selection grade promotional pay scale with effect from 01.01.1990 and the super-selection grade with effect from 01.01.1996 as per the Government Orders dated 03.06.1989, 08.03.1995 and 05.02.1997 and fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly.

The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk in the Excise Department in the year 1963. He was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Excise Inspector vide order dated 01.01.980. However, under the provisions of the U.P. Regularization Rules, 1988, in respect of the posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was granted a regular appointment on the post of the Excise Inspector with effect from 01.07.1987. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the period of ad hoc service rendered from 01.01.1980 to 01.07.1987 should be counted towards the service rendered by the petitioner as an Excise Inspector so as to make him eligible for grant  of the benefits under the Government Orders. The Tribunal, after a careful analysis of the provisions of the orders and the Rules, held that the petitioner did not complete 10 years service as permanent Excise Inspector when he retired on 30th April, 1996  and therefore in terms of the Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 was not entitled to the benefits and accordingly rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner.

We have heard Ms. Anuradha Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the benefits under the aforesaid Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 since the petitioner had worked for more than 10 years on the post of Excise Inspector from 01.01.1980 when he was initially appointed as an ad hoc Excise Inspector.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that not only the promotion order stipulated that the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis with effect from 01.07.1987 but even under the Regularization Rules, 1988, the petitioner was not entitled for counting the ad hoc service rendered from 01.01.1980 to 01.107.1987 and, therefore, no infirmity can be attached to the order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

In our opinion, the Tribunal committed no illegality in rejecting the claim petition for the reason that the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner from 01.01.1980 till the date of his regular appoint on 01.07.1987, cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of counting 10 years service and if that is so, then admittedly, the petitioner had not completed 10 years service when he retired on 30th April, 1996.  The view taken by us finds support from the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kailash Narain Agnihotri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 1 UPLBEC 283, wherein it has clearly been held that the said ad hoc service cannot be counted.  We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.