Writ petition seeking fixation of seniority as Inspector with reference to similarly situated Sub Inspectors promoted earlier. The court did not decide the seniority issue and merely directed respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 27.09.2023 within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14380
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1200 of 2024
Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Anand Singh Pawar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to determine/fix the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Inspector when other similarly situated Sub Inspectors were promoted on the post of Inspector and place the petitioner at correct place in the seniority list of Inspector.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 126 has decided a similar controversy and has placed reliance on paragraph 2 of the said judgment which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-
"2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. There is no dispute that during the pendency of this appeal the appellant's representation against the adverse entries has been allowed and these entries have been expunged from his service record. Since the adverse entries were expunged the State Government by its order dated January 24, 1991 granted Selection Grade to the appellant with effect from the date he takes over charge. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the State Government. Once the adverse entries awarded to the appellant were expunged the appellant is entitled to Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 the date on which he was eligible for grant of Selection Grade. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and modify the order of the State Government dated January 24, 1991 and direct that the appellant shall be treated in Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 and he will be entitled to all other consequential benefits with effect from that date. As regards appellant's further promotion, he will be considered for
promotion in accordance with Rules."
It has further been contended that the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Singh (supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of Gangadhar Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. (Service Single No. 5515 of 2020), decided on 27.02.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this regard, the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) before the respondent No.3 and prays that the respondent No.3 may be directed to decide the same within a specified time.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not oppose the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the competent authority.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 27.09.2023 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.2.2024 Ashish
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Should respondent No.3 be directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2023 regarding fixation of seniority on the post of Inspector?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.K. Singh vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred
1991 Supp. (2) SCC 126 · Who else cites this
Gangadhar Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.Referred
Service Single No. 5515 of 2020
Yogesh Kumar Sharma
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
