Allowed

Dr. Smt. Abha Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2018WRIA/23577/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a rejection of promotion from level III to level IV in the UP Medical Health Service. The court held that excluding suspension years and pre-level-III service was illegal, quashing the order and directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to reconsider for promotion to level IV w.e.f. 14.06.2012; order within three months.

Dr. Smt. Abha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23577 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. (Smt.) Abha Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The petitioner has stated that he is pressing mainly two prayers i.e. (a) and (b) which relate to promotion from level III to level IV, with all consequential benefits on their post.

¶7

Respondent -1 has passed impugned order dated 9^th January 2015 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) on the ground that service record of petitioner from year 2001-2002 to 2010-2011 was considered by selection committee in its meeting dated 19.12.2014. Criteria for promotion from level III to level IV was 'merit' but looking to service record of petitioner she was not found fit for promotion by selection committee. Accordingly she was not recommended for promotion and promotion for level IV was denied.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that she was placed under suspension for period of 11.06.2008 to 28.07.2011 which ultimately culminated in punishment of 'Reversion' vide order dated 02.09.2011. The aforesaid punishment order was set aside by this court in Writ Petition No. 64216 of 2011 decided on 29.10.2013, operative part of judgment dated 29.10.2013 thereof reads as under:-

¶9

“In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the punishment order is not sustainable and is liable to quashed.

¶10

In the result, the petitioner succeeds and is allowed with costs. The Impugned order dated 2^nd September, 2011, passed by the respondent no. 1 annexxure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed. All the consequential benefits, namely, restoration of the petitioner

¶11

on her original position of Medicals Officer level-II, promotion, full salary for the period during which she remained suspended and thereafter, shall be provided to the petitioner within a month.

¶12

On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that an innocent Doctor has suffered a lot mentally and socially at the hands of the respondents, we feel it a fit case to award cost to compensate the petitioner for the sufferings and the mental agony she had undergone, which we quantify at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only), payable to the petitioner within a month from today.”

¶13

Pursuant to aforesaid judgment, period of suspension i.e. from 11.06.2008 to 28.07.2011 was considered as service rendered with benefit of arrears of salary and allowances,

¶14

Thereafter, petitioner was considered for promotion from level-II to level-III w.e.f 18.12.2009 and notional promotion was granted vide order dated 22.10.2014. However, petitioner was not paid salary of level-III w.e.f 18.12.2009. It appears that one Smt. Amita Yadav, junior to petitioner was granted further promotion from level-III to level-IV (on the post of Joint Director) on 14.06.2012 during pendency of Writ Petition No. 64216 of 2011. It is claimed by petitioner that pursuant to judgment dated 29.10.2013 she is entitled for further promotion to level-IV in Uttar Pradesh Medical Health Service w.e.f from date aforesaid Smt. Amita Yadav was granted. The claim of petitioner for promotion to level-IV from the date of promotion of junior i.e. 14.06.2012 was declined on the ground that she was unfit for the post.

¶15

However, facts remains that respondents did not pay salary to the petitioner of level-III w.e.f 18.12.2009. Selection Committee considered service record of petitioner from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011 and declared her unfit for promotion to the post in level-IV.

¶16

From record it is apparently clear that with regard to promotion of petitioner from level-III to level-IV ten years of annual confidential record i.e. from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011 were taken into consideration. It is worth mention that no ACR of petitioner was written by concerned authorities for the years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 which were the years

¶17

when petitioner remained suspended in the earlier writ petition, entire action of respondents was held bad and proceedings were quashed.

¶18

In view of above judgment of this court ACR remarks with respect to petitioner could not be treated adverse for the purpose of promotion from level-III to level-IV. Further service rendered in levelII could not have been considered for promotion from level-III to levelIV. In that view of the matter impugned order is wholly illegal arbitrary and is not sustainable.

¶19

In the result writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.01.2015 is set aside. Respondent no. 1 is directed to reconsider petitioner for promotion in level IV w.e.f 14.06.2012 when Dr. Amita Yadav, junior to petitioner, was promoted to the post of Joint Director in level-IV, and, pass an appropriate order. Annual Confidential Record up to the year 2017 in level-III shall also be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion in level-IV. Respondent no. 1 competent authority pass an appropriate order within three months from the date production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

In the facts and circumstances of the case respondent shall pay exemplary cost to petitioner which we quantify to Rs. 25,000/-.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.4.2018 Vikram

Dr. Smt. Abha Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Smt. Abha Gupta 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

Dr. Diwakar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 6 Othrs.

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Md. Raghib Hussain Vs Union of India and 04 Others

Susheel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Smt. Nita Mukherjee Vs the Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad and 6 Others

Dr. Chandan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others