Allowed

Vivek Srivastav v. State of U.P. and 2 others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2018WRIA/5919/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging rejection of his claim for Group-A appointment. Court directs Director IERT to reconsider claim afresh with reference to prior judgments within two months, as per learned counsel for the respondent. Writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Director IERT directed to revisit petitioner's claim for Group-A absorption and decide expeditely within two months.

Vivek Srivastav Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5919 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vivek Srivastav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J .

¶4

Heard Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Director, Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, 26 Chatham Line Allahabad by which the claim of the petitioner in respect of his appointment on clerical post in Group-A cadre has been rejected. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of his appointment on clerical post in Group-A with all consequential benefits i.e. salary difference, allowances and arrears.

¶6

This much is reflected from the record that the father of the petitioner namely Late Brij Raj Saran Srivastava was working as Senior Lecturer & Head of Department, Maths & Humanities in the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology (IERT). He died-in-harness on 25.01.1987. Consequently the petitioner having requisite qualification moved an application for compassionate appointment on any clerical post in IERT on 12.02.1987. He was offerred ad-hoc appointment on the post of Trainee Examination Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1987 for a period of six months. The same was continued upto 29.2.1988 on consolidated salary and thereafter by order dated 17.7.1990 the petitioner was placed under the U.P. Government Servant Grade. The petitioner is still working on the post of LDC in Group 'B' and is drawing consolidated pay of Rs.9,029/- per month. It is contended that in IERT the regular employees of the institution are known as Group-A and other employees of the institution at institution level but not regular one and only on adhoc basis are known

¶7

as Group-B employees. The petitioner moved representation before the respondents to appoint him under Group-A but of no avail. Aggrieved with the same the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 15274 of 2016 (Vivek Srivastava Vs. Director IERT and another), which was disposed of on 06.04.2016 with following observations:

¶8

"Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Singh holding brief of Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶9

The petitioner is seeking absorption of his services in Group-A as a regular employee of the I.E.R.T.

¶10

Reliance has been placed upon a Single Judge Judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No.34968 of 1993, Smt. Archana Verma Vs. The Director I.E.R.T. & Another and the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.714 of 2015, Director, I.E.R.T. Allahabad Vs. Smt. Archana Verma and Another.

¶11

No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶12

This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.1, Director, I.E.R.T, Allahabad to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for absorption of his services in Group-A as a regular employee keeping in mind the two judgem ents referred to hereinabove and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office."

¶13

Once the aforesaid judgment was not complied with, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No.2134 of 2017, which was disposed of on 15.5.2017 with direction to comply the judgment and order dated 06.04.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.07.2017.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order the respondents have not complied the order dated 06.04.2016 in true spirit. While passing the order dated 06.04.2016 the Court has directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in pursuance of order passed in Smt. Archana Verma (Supra) and Director, IERT, Allahabad (Supra) but while passing the order impugned the respondents have not adhered to the aforesaid judgments and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents very fairly submits that claim of the petitioner would be considered and decided by the authority concerned afresh in view of the order dated 6.4.2016.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Director IERT, Allahabad is directed to revisit the matter afresh in accordance with law and in view of the order passed in 06.04.2016 expeditiously and preferably within next two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after taking note of averments made in the affidavit.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. O rder Date :- 5.3.2018 A. Pt. Singh

Vivek Srivastav v. State of U.P. and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Srivastav v. State of U.P. and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh and 19 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ayyub Ali Hashmi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pushpendra Kumar and 35 Others Vs Union of India through Secretary Mhrd New Delhi and 4 Others

Saroj Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Arvind Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

C/M Baba Mohanram Bharat Singh Kisan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya through Its Manager Teekam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.