Partly allowed

Ram Pravesh Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018SPLAD/559/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the impugned order that dismissed a writ petition for salary arrears. The Single Bench had set aside the applicant's appointment as Typist without a counter affidavit. The High Court remanded the matter for adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.07.2018 is set aside; Writ petition is remanded to the Single Bench; Special appeal allowed.

Ram Pravesh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 559 of 2018 Appellant :- Ram Pravesh Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh,Vivek Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Saxena

¶6

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J.

¶7

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶8

This appeal is barred by limitation from 3 days. An application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the same. Ignoring the delay in filing the appeal, we have looked into the merits of the case.

¶9

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ-A No.14293 of 2018. Learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ aforesaid arrived at conclusion that procedure adopted by respondents no.3 and 4 in absorbing the appellant-petitioner in service as Typist is arbitrary and therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶10

Argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ to have a direction for competent authorities to pay arrears of salary to him as Typist. The post on which he was appointed on 10.07.2017 the Court without having any material before it declared the appointment of the appellant-petitioner by way of absorption on the post of typist illegal.

¶11

On going through the entire record, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Bench erred while adjudicating petition for writ pertaining to have salary against work done on a particular post. Learned Single Bench would have denied the relief claimed on being not satisfied with illegal appointment but no case could have been set aside the order of appointment which was not a subject matter of the petition for writ and that too hearing the party that passed the order giving appointment to the appellant-petitioner. We have looked into the order of appointment of the appellant-petitioner dated 10.07.2017 passed by Chairman, Municipal Council, Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar that mentions about the provision available under Municipal Act, 1916 for appointment by way of promotion in clerical or ministerial category from among class IV employees.

¶12

¶13

The order of appointment is based upon report given by the Executive Officer on 29.05.2017. Report aforesaid is also available on record at page 84 of the paper book. The report aforesaid mentions all details relating to the appointment given to the appellant-petitioner as Typist.

¶14

A relevant para of the report aforesaid is quoted hereinunder:

¶15

“ orZeku esa ikfydk esa VkbZfiLV ds in ij dk;Zjr deZpkjh ds lsok fuoRr gks tkus ds dkj.k VkbZfiLV dk in fjDr gSA izkFkhZ dh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk b.VjehfM,V gS rFkk VkbZfiax Vad.k ,oa dEI;wVj dk dkslZ fd;k gqvk gSA ikfydk }kjk foHkkxh; vko';drk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks fnukad 09@10@2015 dks _CCC (Course on Computer Concepts)_ ds izf'k{k.k gsrq vuqefr iznku dh x;h gSA rRi'pkr izkFkhZ }kjk _CCC (Course on Computer Concepts)_ dk izf'k{k.k foHkkxh; nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu djrs gq, iw.kZ fd;k x;kA orZeku esa izkFkhZ }kjk ikfydk dk;kZy; esa VkbZfiax dk;Z ds lkFk&lkFk mPpf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk crk;s x;s foHkkxh; eqdnekr ,oa vU; egRoiw.kZ dk;ksZ dks Hkh viuh iw.kZ ftEesnkjh o fu"BkiwoZd fd;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk] vf/kekuh vgZrk] dk;kZuqHko o foHkkxh; vko';drk ds nf"Vxr ikfydk esa fjDr in VkbZfiLV ds in ij LFkk;h :i ls lek;kstu fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA

¶16

mijksDr ds lEcU/k esa egksn; dks voxr djkuk gS fd izkFkhZ jke izos'k iky dks ikfydk esa cSdykWx lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij fnukad 01@12@2007 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS rFkk fnukad 22@12@2011 dks LFkk;h fd;k x;k gSA budh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk b.VjehfM,V gS rFkk vf/kekuh vgZrk] Vad.k dEI;wVj fMIykek o s CCC (Course on Computer Concepts) gSA budh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vf/kekuh vgZrk ds nf"Vxr dk;kZy; vkns'k i=kad 311@u0ik0ifj0nk0@2015&16] fnukad 02 flrEcj 2015 ls ikfydk dk;kZy; esa VkbZfiLV ds in dk dk;Z fy;k tk jgk gS rFkk foHkkxh; vko';drkvksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, jkeizos'k iky dks fnukad 09@10@2015 dks _CCC (Course on Computer Concepts)_ ds izf'k{k.k gsrq vuqefr iznku fd;k x;kA jke izos'k iky }kjk izf'k{k.k izkIr dj] izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk dk;kZy; esa VkbZfiLV dk dk;Z dj jgs gSA ikfydk esa VkbZfiLV ds in ij dk;Zjr deZpkjh ds lsokfuoRr gks tkus ds dkj.k VkbZfiLV dk in fjDr gSA ikfydk esa jke izos'k iky ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh deZpkjh }kjk VkbZfiLV ds in ij lek;kstu gsrq izR;kosnu izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kgSA ikfydk esa ,dek= in ys[kk fyfid ds vfrfjDr vU; leLr fyfid oxhZ; inksa ls deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokfuoRr ls ikfydk dh ypj gks pqdh O;oLFkk Hkkjr ljdkj] izns'k ljdkj }kjk pykbZ tk jgh fur ubZ ;kstukvksa ds lapkyu ,oa 'kklu dks Rofjr lwpukvksa ds izs"k.k tufgr] dk;Zfgr] foHkkxh; vko';drkvksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izkFkhZ jke izos'k iky dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vf/kekuh vgZrk] vuqHko o dk;Zdq'kyrk ds nf"Vxr o foHkkxh; vko';drk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ikfydk fgr esa ;fn egksn; mfpr le>s rks ikfydk ds fjDr in VkbZfiLV ds in ij lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsaA””

¶17

A bare perusal of the report indicates that as per Executive Officer, no other class IV employee was eligible and available to be appointed in ministerial category from among class-IV employees except the appellant-petitioner.

¶18

Be that as it may, in entirety we are satisfied that no occasion was there to

¶19

¶20

learned Single Bench to set aside the order of appointment of the appellantpetitioner without examining its merits by availing necessary details from the employer in the form of the counter affidavit.

¶21

In view of whatever stated above, the order impugned dated 10.07.2018 is set aside. Writ petition is remanded to learned Single Bench for its adjudication on merits relating to the issue involved in petition for writ.

¶22

The special appeal is allowed.

¶23

No order as to costs.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.8.2018 Asha

¶25

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

Ram Pravesh Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pravesh Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

C/M Baba Raghav Das Krishak Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Superintending Engineer, 14TH Circle Irrigation Works, Azamgarh and 5 Ors.

Nagar Panchayat and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Rekha Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prabhu Nath Rai Vs Dist. Inspector of Schools and 3 Ors.