Allowed

Ram Naresh v. U.P. Forest Corporation Aranya Vikas Bhawan Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023/3118/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the denial of Assured Career Progression benefits. The court held that the censure entry, though served later, did not constitute 'pending proceedings' on the date entitlement accrued. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be granted the benefit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 dated 17.01.2023 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be paid the benefit of 3rd Assured Career Progression, and ante-dated computation of arrears shall be don

Ram Naresh Vs U.P. Forest Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32840

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3118 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Respondent :- U.P. Forest Corporation Aranya Vikas Bhawan Thru. Chairman And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.01.2023 whereby the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) has been denied on the ground of an order dated 19.05.2021 passed against the petitioner and as contained in Annexure - 2.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing the prayer in respect of Annexure - 2 and confines his prayer to the challenge to the order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure - 1).

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of 3rd ACP in terms of the Government Order dated 22.12.2011. He argues that while the petitioner was in service, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 03.10.2016 (Annexure - 10) wherein three charges were levelled against the petitioner. It is claimed that the petitioner submitted a reply to the said charges levelled pertaining to the year 2011-12 and an order came to be passed against the petitioner on 19.05.2021 whereby a punishment of censure entry was awarded to the petitioner.

¶9

4. He argues that irrespective of the said punishment order, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of 3rd ACP in terms of the Government Order dated 22.12.2011 read with Government Order dated 24.01.2012. It is argued that in terms of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, following provisions have been made:

¶10

"(स) यददि उस अवधधि मम , धजिसकके सकेववादभिलकेख उपररोकवाननुसवार दवचवार कके्ቔ मम आतके हह , करोई दनन्दिवा ्ቚदवदቖኌ दव्ቕमवान हरो और उस दनन्दिवा ्ቚदवदቖኌ सके सम्बनन्धित घटनवा ककी दतधथ कके बवादि ककी अगलके पवच वरर ककी अवधधि मम करोई अन्य ्ቚदतककलतवा ा (यथवा ्ቚदतककल ्ቚदतदቖኌ, दिण्ड आददि) न हरो तरो उस दनन्दिवा ्ቚदवदቖኌ करो सन्तरोरजिनक सकेववा कके मकल्यवकन हकेतनु दवचवार ा मम न धलयवा जिवायके अथवारत उसके नजिरन्दिवाजि कर ददियवा जिवायके।"

¶11

5. He further argues that similarly in terms of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994, following provisions have been made in Para 5(4) and Para 6 therein, which are as under:

¶12

"5(4) ्ቚत्य क े अदनयदमततवा कके साሬबाሬधि मम चवाहके वके दकससी वरर ककी हरो जिरो भिसी दिण्डवादिकेश दनगरत दकयवा जिवायकेगवा उसकवा तवात्कवाधलक ्ቚतवाव हरोगवा तथवा दिण्डवादिकेश दनगरत हरोनके कके ददिनवक सके ा साሬबाሬधधित वरर ककी ववादररक ्ቚववृቖኌसी कके सवाथ उसके रखवा।

¶13

6 - अननुररोधि हहै दक साሬदिभिरगत शवाशनदिकेश ददिनवक ा 30 जिकन 1993 मम दनधिवा र रत सवामवान्य मवागरदिशरक धसदवतरो करो उपररोक ्ቚस्तर ा -5 कके सवाथ पढवा जिवाए व उसकवा कवृपयवा समसी स्तरह पर कडवाई सके अननुपवालन दकयवा जिवायके |"

¶14

6. He argues that the said provisions contained in the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 as well as the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 came up for interpretation before this Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Pramod Kumar Tewari & Anr.; 2023 (41) LCD 589 and after interpreting the said two provisions, the Court recorded as under:

¶15

"14. Paragraph 5(4) of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 as aforequated provides that any punishment order issued will be effective with immediate effect even if it is issued in respect of some irregularity committed at a prior point in time. It further provides that such punishment order shall be kept in the character roll of the employee concerned in the year in which it is awarded. Paragraph 6 states that the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 shall be read in conjunction which para 5 of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993.

¶16

15. If we compare Paragraph 5(4) available in the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 and Paragraph 2( स ) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, we do not find that there is any conflict between the said provisions. In fact both operate in different fields. So far as Paragraph 5 (4) of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 is concerned, according to our considered opinion, the same provides as to in the character roll of which year punishment awarded to a government employee has to be kept and from what date will it be effective. Whereas so far as the provisions

¶17

contained in Paragraph 2( स ) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 is concerned, the same, in our considered opinion, provides that even if a censure entry is available in the service record of an employee awarded in a year subsequent to the year in which any irregularity is said to have been committed which has resulted in award of censure entry, the same is to be ignored for the purposes of assessment of satisfactory service of an employee provided that during next five years from the date of incident in respect of which censure entry was awarded, the employee concerned has not been awarded with any other censure entry or punishment.

¶18

16. Accordingly, Paragraph 5(4) of the Government Order dated 25.06.1994 does not in any manner dilute the provisions contained in Paragraph 2( स ) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993. The said interpretation and construction of the provisions contained in the

¶19

Paragraph 2( स ) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 has a rationale too which is that in a situation where a censure entry is awarded to an employee in respect of an incident or alleged irregularity said to have occurred or committed in past and considerable time has elapsed since then, taking into consideration award of censure entry for the purposes of reckoning the satisfactory service, in our opinion, will be highly arbitrary.

¶20

17. Our view that Paragraph 5(4) of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 does not in any manner dilute or rescind the provisions contained in Paragraph 2( स ) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, is fortified by a subsequent Government Order dated 06.04.1999. Paragraph 2 of the said Government Order dated 06.04.1999 is quoted hereunder:

¶21

"2 मनुझके यह कहनके कवा दनदिकेश हहआ हहै दक ऐसके ्ቚकरणह पर धजिसमम जिव ा चरोपरवान्त समसर यवा दनन्दिवात्मक ्ቚदवदቖኌ ददियके जिवानके कवा दनणरय धलयवा जिवातवा हहै , वह ्ቚदवदቖኌ साሬबाሬधधित कमरचवारसी / अधधिकवारसी ककी चरर्ቔ पाሬधजिकवा मम उससी वरर ककी ्ቚदवदቖኌ मम रखसी जिवायकेगसी धजिस वरर सकेन्सर अथववा दनन्दिवात्मक ्ቚदवदቖኌ ददियके। जिवानके कवा दनणरय धलयवा गयवा हहै। वह उलकेख अवश्य कर ददियवा जिवाय दक ्ቚकरण साሬबाሬधधित कके सकेववाकवाल कके दकस पदि व वरर सके साሬबाሬधधित रहवा हहै और्ቚ वा्቎ ककी गयसी ्ቔनुदट दकस ्ቚकवृदत ककी रहसी हहै धजिससके चरर्ቔ पाሬधजिकवा कवा मकल्यव ा कन करतके समय दिसी गयसी ्ቚदवदቖኌ कके स्ववाभिवादवक असर करो दृदቖኌगत रखवा जिवा सकके। "

¶22

18. From a perusal of the afore-quoted provision of Paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 06.04.1999, it is clear that it has been provided therein that in case after enquiry any censure entry is awarded against an employee, such censure entry shall be kept in the character roll of the employee concerned in the year in which censure entry is awarded, however, while doing so it shall also be mentioned, while recording the censure entry in the year in which it is awarded, that censure entry related to which year or which post and what has been the nature of the mistake which resulted in award of censure entry so that the actual and natural consequence and effect of such censure entry can be taken into account while evaluating an employee. Thus, the Government Order dated 06.04.1999, to us, appears to be in complete sync with provisions contained in Paragraph 2(8) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 which, as observed above, does not get diluted by the provisions contained in Paragraph 5(4) of the Government Order dated 25.03.1993."

¶23

7. In the light of the said, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that irrespective of the censure entry, the same shall not be a bar for grant of the benefit of 3rd ACP as has been done by means of the impugned order.

¶24

8. This Court had called for instructions from the respondents; Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel has produced the instructions dated 11.05.2023, which are taken on record. The reasons as recorded in the instructions and as contained in Para 10 is as under:

¶25

"10. तदिरोपरवान्त ए०ससी०पसी० ककी सनुदवधिवा हकेतनु गदठित सदमदत ककी बहैठिक ददिनवक ा 07.09.2021 मम अन्य कवादमरकह कके सवाथ-सवाथ ववादिसी कके ्ቚकरण पर भिसी दवचवार दकयवा गयवा। सदमदत दवारवा शसी रवाम नरकेश , उप ललॉदगाሬग अधधिकवारसी (सकेववादनववृत) ककी ए०ससी०पसी० कके्ቚ

¶26

करण पर ररपरोटर / मत ्ቚस्तनुत दकयवा गयवा दक "शसी रवाम नरकेश ककी गरोपनसीय ्ቚदवदቖኌयह शवासनवादिकेशह एवाሬ सनुसाሬगत अदभिलकेखह / दनयमह कके आधिवार पर सदमदत दवारवा ्ቚकरण पर दवचवार दकयवा गयवा। दवचवाररोपरवान्त शसी रवाम नरकेश करो पसीलसीभिसीत दव्ቅय ्ቚभिवाग सके सम्बनन्धित अननुशवासदनक ्ቚकरण पर ्ቚबन्धि दनदिकेशक ककी प्ቔ साሬ o जिसी0-690 / ददिनवक ा 19.05.2021 दवारवा शसी रवाम नरकेश , उप ललौदगाሬग अधधिकवारसी (तत्कवालसीन ्ቚभिवागसीय दव्ቅय्ቚ

¶27

बन्धिक, पसीलसीभिसीत) करो वरर 2011-12 मम दननन्दित दकयके जिवानके कवा दिण्ड ददियवा गयवा हहै। दकन्तनु शवासनवादिकेश ददिनवक ा 25.03.1994 कके दबन्दिनु साሬ 0-5 (4) मम उलकेख हहै दक "्ቚत्य क अदनयदमततवा कके सम्बन्धि मम चवाहके यके दकससी पकवर वरर ककी हरो जिरो भिसी दिण्डवादिकेश दनगरत दकयवा जिवायकेगवा, उसकवा तवात्कवाधलक ्ቚभिवाव हरोगवा।" अततः शवासनवादिकेश कके अननुसवार पवाररत दिण्डवादिकेश ददिनवक ा 19.05.2021 सके ्ቚभिवावसी हरोगवा। उक कके अदतररक शसी रवाम नरकेश कके दवरूद वरर 2016 मम ए०ससी०पसी० अननुमन्यतवा ककी दतधथ ददिनवक ा 18.06.2016 कके पकवर सके दिण्डवादिकेश जिवारसी हरोनके ककी दतधथ तक अननुशवासदनक कवायरववाहसी ्ቚचलन मम थसी, धजिस कवारण सदमदत शसी रवाम नरकेश करो तवृतसीय दवतसीय स्तररो्ቐयन अननुमन्य करनके ककी साሬस्तनुदत नहीሻ करतसी हहै। " (साሬल्ሿक-2)"

¶28

9. In the light of the said reasoning, the impugned order is tried to be justified. The reasoning recorded and as produced before this Court through instructions record that the entitlement of 3rd ACP was on 18.06.2016 and as the proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the said date, the petitioner was rightly denied the benefits of the 3rd ACP.

¶29

10. The said contention of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted solely because the charge-sheet itself was served upon the petitioner after 18.06.2016, on 03.10.2016, as such, the reasoning that on the said date, proceedings were pending is factually incorrect.

¶30

11. Considering the mandate of Para 2(स) of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 read with Para 5(4) and Para 6 of the Government Order dated 25.03.1994 and the interpretation given by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Tiwari's case (supra) , the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner had no proceedings pending against him on the date when his entitlement for 3rd ACP had accrued i.e. 18.06.2016, thus, the petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of 3rd ACP.

¶31

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure - 1) is quashed with directions to the respondents to pay the benefit of 3rd ACP to the petitioner in accordance with

¶32

law.

¶33

13. The computation of the arrears shall be done by the respondents and the amounts shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

14. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

¶35

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 nishant

¶36

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Naresh v. U.P. Forest Corporation Aranya Vikas Bhawan Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh v. U.P. Forest Corporation Aranya Vikas Bhawan Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing and Urban Planning, Lko. and Another

Adarsh Srivastva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Anubhag Bapu Bhawan Lko. and Others

Ram Gopal Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Alok Chandra Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Namami Gange and Gramin Jal Poorti Vibhag Lko. and 4 Others

Indra Kumar Bajpai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others

Sarvesh Narain Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others