Allowed

State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Revenue Lucknow and Anr. v. Chhote Lal Rawat and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023SPLA/73/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal, the Allahabad High Court allowed the State's challenge to a Single Judge's order granting seniority to clerks. The Court held that since their entitlement to the UDA post was already decided in 2006, they were estopped from re-litigating the issue, setting aside the lower court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 6.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 29563 (S/S) of 2018 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.

State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Revenue… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.1 of 8

¶2

RESERVED JUDGMENT Reserved on: 17.01.2023 Delivered on: 02.03.2023

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 73 of 2020

¶5

Appellant :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Revenue Lucknow And Anr. Respondent :- Chhote Lal Rawat And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Appellants and Shri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for the respodents.

¶8

By means of the instant Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the State of U.P. has assailed the judgment and order dated 6.11.2019 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29563 (S/S) of 2018, Chhotey Lal Rawat and ors. v. State of U.P. & ors.

¶9

The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by the respondents challenging an order dated 11.9.2018 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) was initially appointed on the post of Typist on 20.9.1982, the petitioner no. 2 (respondent no. 2 herein) was appointed on 4.10.1982, the petitioner no. 3 (respondent no. 3 herein) was appointed on 20.9.1982 and the petitioner no. 4 (respondent no. 4 herein) was appointed on 4.10.1982. Subsequently by means of a Government Order dated 19.11.1992 29 permanent/temporary posts of Typists in the Board of Revenue were abolished/deferred and sanction was given for creation of 29 temporary posts of Lower Division Assistant (L.D.A.) till 28.2.1993, unless the posts were abolished before the aforesaid date.

¶10

Page No.2 of 8

¶11

By means of another order dated 20.3.1993 it was provided that the aforesaid Government Order dated 19.11.1992 will be effective from 26.11.1988. Thereafter, the petitioners No. 1 to 4 were promoted on the post of Reference Clerk with effect from 20.8.1988, 1.6.1990, 20.8.1988 and 20.4.1990 respectively.

¶12

On 2.8.1997 a Government Order was issued granting sanction for creation of a consolidated cadre of 'Upper Division Assistant (U.D.A.), Reference Clerk and Junior Noter Drafter' and, thus, the petitioners became U.D.A. with effect from 1.6.1990, 27.3.1991, 27.3.1991 and 27.3.1991 respectively by means of an Order No. 325, dated 4.2.2002.

¶13

On 4.2.2002 itself the Board of Revenue passed another order No. 324, regularizing services of the petitioners on the post of Reference Clerk with effect from 24.7.1993, 15.3.1996, 2.8.1993 and 2.11.1995 respectively. In furtherance of the aforesaid order No. 324 dated 4.2.2002, services of the petitioners on the post of Reference Clerk were confirmed by means of an order dated 20.2.2002.

¶14

On 18.3.2002 an order was passed modifying the earlier order No. 324, dated 4.2.2002 so as to make regularization of the petitioners on the post of Reference Clerk effective from 4.2.2002.

¶15

Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 3437 of 2004 (Harishchandra v. State of U.P.) and 6146 of 2004 (Brij Lal & ors. V. State of U.P. and ors.) were filed challenging the aforesaid order of regularization.

¶16

During the course of hearing, on 26.5.2005 the court issued a direction to finalize the gradation-list. A final seniority-list was published on 7.7.2005, which was challenged by way of amendment in the writ petition and the persons affected by the challenge were impleaded as respondents to the writ petition, including the petitioners (respondents no. 1 to 4 in the Special Appeal). The Writ Petition was

¶17

Page No.3 of 8

¶18

allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 and the seniority-list was quashed.

¶19

While allowing the Writ Petition this Court held that promotion on the post of U.D.A. under the Rules of 1983 can only be made from the persons having completed 10 years permanent service on the post of L.D.A. and the services rendered on the post of L.D.A. on ad hoc basis do not qualify for the same. The petitioners were regularized on the post of L.D.A. by means of the order No. 325, dated 4.2.2022 and they were regularized on the post of U.D.A. by means of an order passed even earlier to passing of the aforesaid order, bearing No. 324, dated 4.2.2002.

¶20

The respondent no. 2, Matadin had filed Special Appeal No. 262 of 2007 challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 and the special appeal was dismissed by means of an order dated 26.2.2009.

¶21

On 3.7.2014 the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue Group-B and C Service Rules 2004 came into existence and the proviso appended to Rule 5(2)(ii) of the aforesaid Rules specifically provides that the persons substantatively appointed to the posts of Reference Clerk and Junior Noter Drafter shall be deemed to be appointed on the post of Review Officer.

¶22

Meanwhile, a tentative seniority list of the employees of the Board of Revenue was published on 10.5.2013 and objections were invited against the same. A four Member Committee considered the objections. The petitioners had also submitted their objections claiming seniority over the persons who had been directly appointed on the post of Review Officer in the year 2005 on the ground that they were regularized on the post of Reference Clerk (now known as Review Officer/U.D.A.) vide order dated 4.2.2002. The Committee

¶23

Page No.4 of 8

¶24

concluded that since the petitioners were regularized on the post of L.D.A. on 4.2.2002, they could not be considered for appointment on the post of Reference Clerk with effect from the same date in view of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3437 of 2004, connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6414 of 2004 and accordingly they would be entitled for regularization on the post of Review Officer after having put in 10 years of substantive service on the post of L.D.A.

¶25

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 5210 (S/S) of 2013 for determination of their seniority on the post of Review Officer, claiming that they should be deemed to be substantively working on the post of U.D.A. with effect from 4.2.2002. This court passed an order on 11.9.2013 directing to take a decision on representation of the petitioners. The representation was rejected by means of an order dated 15.4.2014, stating that the issue had attained finality by means of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2016 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 and 6414 of 2004.

¶26

On 1.7.2014 an order was passed promoting the petitioners to the post of U.D.A. with effect from 4.12.2012 upon completion of 10 years permanent service on the post of L.D.A., in terms of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 and 6414 of 2004.

¶27

The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 1.7.2014 by filing Writ Petition No. 3385 (S/S) of 2014. The Writ Petition was disposed of by means of an order dated 10.11.2017 directing disposal of representation of the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the petitioners were heard and an order was passed on 11.9.2018 rejecting their claim in view of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 and 6414 of 2004.

¶28

Page No.5 of 8

¶29

The petitioners challenged the order dated 11.9.2018 by filing Writ Petition No. 29563 (S/S) of 2018. This writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge by means of the judgment dated 6.11.2019. The Hon'ble Single Judge held that the petitioners were confirmed on the post of Reference Clerk on 4.2.2002, is an undisputed fact and the same order has been withdrawn. The Hon'ble Single Judge held that the petitioners were regularized on the post of Reference Clerk vide List No. 324, dated 4.2.2002, which was not under challenge before the High Court and under challenge were Regularization Lists No. 323 and 325, dated 4.2.2002.

¶30

Recruitment to the post of U.D.A. in Board of Revenue is governed by Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules 1983, which provides as follows:

¶31

“ Rule 5 . Source of recruitment-Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service all be made from the following sources-

¶32

(1)...

¶33

(2)...

¶34

(3) Upper Division Assistant-By Competitive Examination conducted by the Commission:

¶35

Provided that-

¶36

33 per cent of the vacancies on the post of Upper Division Assistant shall be filled by promotion on the principle of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit from amongst permanent Reference Clerks, Junior Noters and Drafters. Treasurer and Lower Division Assistants:

¶37

(1) Provided further that the appointing authority may in special circumstances and with the concurrence of the Commission, increase in any year the said reservation up to 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies intended to be filled in the year.

¶38

(4) Treasurer and Reference Clerk-By promotion from amongst the permanent Lower Division Assistants who have put in at least 10 years continuous service in a substantive capacity on the said post in the service on the

¶39

Page No.6 of 8

¶40

first day of July of the Year in which selection is made.

¶41

(5) Lower Division Assistants--By completive examination conducted by the commission:

¶42

Provided that 33 per cent of the vacancies in the year shall be reserved for permanent typist who have put in at least 5 years continuous service on the post on the first day of July of the year of recruitment.

¶43

Provided also that the Appointing Authority may only once in special circumstances and with the concurrence of the Commission reserve in any year in place of the reservation in the first proviso, up to 80 per cent of the total number of vacancies intended to be filled in the year, for departmental candidates who have rendered temporary or officiating service in the said or higher posts in the office of the Board of Revenue for such total period as may be fixed in that behalf in consultation with the Commission. The vacancies so reserved may be filled in on the basis of a qualifying examination to be conducted by the Commission from amongst the candidates who come up to such standard as is considered reasonable by the Commission. The Syllabus for the qualifying examination will be determined by the Appointing Authority in consultation with the Commission.”

¶44

Moreover, Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules of 1983 provides that a person on appointment to a post or service in or against a permanent vacancy shall be placed on probation for a period of two years. The appointing authority may allow continuous service, rendered in an officiating or temporary capacity in a post included in the cadre or any other equivalent or higher post, to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of probation.

¶45

In the aforesaid judgment dated 22.12.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 of 6414 of 2004 this Court held that:-

¶46

"From the aforesaid Rules, it is apparently clear that the appointment on the post of L.D.A. is required to be made through competitive examination to be conducted by the Public Service Commission, while appointment on the post of U.D.A. is required to be made (a) 67% by direct recruitment through U.P. Public Service Commission; (b) 33% by promotion from persons working as Reference

¶47

Page No.7 of 8

¶48

Clerks, Junior Noters and Drafters, Treasurers and L.D.As, which could be increased upto 50% of the total number of vacancies to be filled in a particular year, with the concurrence of the Service Commission only. The appointment on the post of Reference Clerk is to be made by promotion of L.D.As., who have put in 10 years of service as permanent Lower Division Assistants."

¶49

The aforesaid judgment dated 22.12.2006 has attained finality and is binding on the parties, including the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 29563 (S/S) of 2018. Thereafter, they again filed representation claiming that they should be deemed to be working on the post of Review Officer from the year 2002 and their seniority should be fixed accordingly.

¶50

The representation was rejected by means of an order dated 11.9.2018. The order takes note of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 and 6414 of 2004 and the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules 1983 alongwith Uttar Pradesh (Regularization of Posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules 1988 and it has been mentioned that a Committee constituted in furtherance of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 and 6414 of 2004 had considered the representations of the petitioners and had recommended their regularization on the post of Review Officer with effect from 4.2.2012. Their claim for treating them to have been regularized on the post of U.D.A. with effect from 4.2.2002 was rejected.

¶51

When the issue of entitlement of the petitioners to the post of U.D.A. has already been decided by means of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3437 of 2004 and 6414 of 2004, the petitioners are estopped from raising the same plea again. The reason given by the Hon'ble

¶52

Page No.8 of 8

¶53

Single Judge that List No. 324 had not been challenged in the earlier writ petitions, would not make any difference, as the issue of entitlement on the post of U.D.A. was considered and decided by the Court and the subsequent writ petition filed raising the same issue between the same parties would obviously be barred by the principles of res-judicata.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

¶55

For the aforesaid reasons, the special appeal is allowed . The judgment dated 6.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29563 (S/S) of 2018, Chhotey Lal Rawat and ors. v. State of U.P. & ors. is hereby set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)(Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶57

Order Date :- 02.03.2023 A.Nigam

¶58

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Revenue Lucknow and Anr. v. Chhote Lal Rawat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Revenue Lucknow and Anr. v. Chhote Lal Rawat and Ors.

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

U.P.Road Transport Corporation Throu Its Regional Manager Vs Sri Pal Singh

Rajendra Prasad Bharti Vs State of U.P Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt.of Appointment andANR

Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another Vs Nishith Kumar Alias Dr. Nishith Kumar Rai and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors. Vs Pramod Kumar

State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors. Vs Santosh Kumar Verma

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue and 5 Others