Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018SPLA/648/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that extending deputation beyond three years is based on the employer's sound discretion and not mandatory. The absence of recorded satisfaction in the discontinuation order is not fatal as the authority is not required to reflect such considerations in the order itself.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; dismissal of the special appeal upholding the impugned order.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 27 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 648 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav And 27 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandrakesh Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 4th of July, 2018 by learned Single Bench in Writ A No. 13046 of 2018 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others).

¶6

By the judgment impugned learned Single Bench held that the order dated 9th of May, 2018 in no manner causes prejudice to the petitioners as they have been repatriated to their original post.

¶7

In brief factual matrix of the case is that as a consequence to a process of selection the appellantspetitioners were placed on deputation for a period of three years as Assistant Co-ordinator in "Sarva Siksha Abhiyan". On completion of the term of three years the Authority competent, under an order dated 9th of May, 2018 repatriated the appellants-petitioners to their parent department on original post. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred a petition for writ that came to be disposed of under an order dated 3rd of April, 2018. Learned Single Bench while relying upon Clause 9 of Government Order dated 2nd of February, 2011 disposed of the petition for writ with direction that so long as the issue of satisfactory working of appellants-petitioners is not examined the Authorities would not proceed to conduct fresh recruitment only because of the fact that period of three years has expired.

¶8

The learned Single Bench also ordered that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service till a decision afresh be taken. After disposal of the petition for writ aforesaid, the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi under an order dated 19th of May, 2018 ordered for conducting a process of selection to fill up the vacancies pertaining to the post of Co-ordinator and by the same order approval was also given for relieving the appellantspetitioners from the post of Co-ordinator to resume duties on their original post by 1st of July, 2018. Being aggrieved

¶9

by the order dated 19th of May, 2018 the petition for writ was filed that came to be dismissed under the order dated 4th of July, 2018.

¶10

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order with regard to reconstitution of Block Resources Centres under "Sarva Siksha Abhiyan" providing therein that the Co-ordinators and Co-Coordinators are required to be employed for a term of three years and that term can be extended for next three years, if the services rendered by the incumbent concerned are satisfactory. The Order further prescribes that it would be appropriate to go for fresh process of selection after completion of six years service.

¶11

By relying upon the condition aforesaid, it is asserted that the appellants-petitioners would not have been repatriated without assessing their service and if those were satisfactory, then the same should have been extended for next three years. It is also stated that learned Single Bench in earlier petition for writ preferred by the petitioners in "Writ A No. 9313 of 2018" issued a direction to the respondents-Authorities not to proceed to conduct fresh recruitment till assessing satisfactory working of the petitioners, but the respondents acted contrary to that.

¶12

The order impugned, as per learned counsel for the appellants is in contravention of the directions given by learned Single Bench by relying upon the Government Order dated February 2nd, 2011.

¶13

Having considered the argument advanced, we find no merit in the same. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that the Government Order on which reliance is placed simply directs that services of a deputationist can be extended for a period of three years, if the same are satisfactory. There is no mandatory requirement to continue each and every person on deputation beyond a period of three years. The extension provided is based on sound discretion of the employer.

¶14

So far as the directions given by learned Single Bench in earlier petition for writ are concerned it would be appropriate to state that the consideration made by the Authority competent is not required to be reflected in the order discontinuing the appellants-petitioners from service, but in the notings of their own records.

¶15

In view of it merely on the count that the order dated 19th of May, 2018 does not mention about satisfaction of the employer it cannot be assumed that the assessment of the service rendered by the appellants-petitioners was not made.

¶16

In entirety, we do not find any wrong with the order passed by learned Single Bench. The appeal, hence is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.7.2018 Rameez

¶18

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ganga Construction Co. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Padam Constructions Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Om Bricks Field Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ved Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Kapil Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Peetam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others