Namrata Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Forest U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62987

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5903 of 2024

Petitioner :- Namrata Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Forest U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3.

¶7

Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties has filed counter affidavit dated 21.8.2024 which are taken on record which reiterates the reasons indicated in the impugned order for denying notional promotion to petitioner, the petition is finally adjudicated upon.

¶8

Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the petition. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner promotion from Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade-II notionally from the date of his entitlement i.e. 25.11.2015 in terms of Regulation 16(3)(ii)(c) of Chapter - III of the Service Regulation of the Corporation framed under the U.P. Forest Corporation Act, 1974.

¶9

Bereft of unnecessary details, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment and order of this Court at Allahabad passed in Writ-A No. 5819 of 2018 (Ram Saran v. State of UP and 3 Others) decided on 12.03.2019, a copy of which is Annexure No. 13 to the petition.

¶10

This Court, vide its order dated 30.07.2024, had required Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 to file counter affidavit as to why the benefit of the order passed by this Court in the case of Ram Saran (supra) cannot be extended to the petitioner.

¶11

Today, Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 states that against the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ram Saran (supra), the Corporation has filed Special Appeal Defective No. 1114 of 2019 in re: U.P. Forest Corporation and 2 Others v. Ram Saran and Another but

¶12

no stay order has been granted in the said special appeal. He further states that Ram Saran has been granted the benefit of said judgment subject to decision in the aforesaid special appeal.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 further submits that the general body of the Corporation has passed a resolution dated 03.05.2023 to amend the service regulations which provides for an automatic promotion after a person has rendered ten years' meritorious service as Assistant Grade-III which decision has been sent to the State Government.

¶14

However, Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 fairly states that no decision has been taken by the State Government till date consequently, the regulation still continues to operate.

¶15

A perusal of judgment rendered in Ram Saran (supra) clearly indicates the fact that the coordinate Bench of this Court has come to a conclusion that as per extant statutory Rules particularly Regulation 16(3)(ii)(c) of Chapter - III of the Service Regulation of the Corporation framed under the U.P. Forest Corporation Act, 1974 an employee appointed as Assistant grade III will be promoted to Grade II after completing ten years of service irrespective of availability of post.

¶16

The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-

¶17

"8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records and the relevant provisions of law, I find that there is no dispute to Regulation 16(3)(ii)(c) of Chapter 3 of the Service Regulation that an employee appointed as Assistant Grade III will be promoted to Grade II after completing ten years of service irrespective of the availability of post, meaning thereby that in case, there is no vacant post in Grade II, the employee shall be given notional promotion. The argument of Sri Srivastava has force that the letter dated 28.10.1996 written by the Special Secretary, Govenrment of U.P. was in regard to the proposal to be sent by the Managing Director, U.P. Forest Corporation to the State Government for making necessary provisions in the service regulations. But, as it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the respondentCorporation that after 1996 no correspondence had been made by the Corporation with the Government in regard to any amendment to the said service regulation and till date the service regulations still hold good without any amendment or alteration. Further the argument of Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner after completing 10 years, 16 years and 28 years of service has been granted increment in Grade Pay does not in any way deny him the benefit so accrued in pursuance of the Regulation 16(3)(ii)(c) and is eligible for notional promotion."

¶18

Considering the aforesaid, more particularly when the petitioner is seeking parity of the judgment passed in the case of Ram Saran (supra) as well as the fact that the respondents while deciding the representation of petitioner vide order dated 07.06.2023 have only indicated about pendency of the said special appeal before Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad to be an impediment in allowing promotion to petitioner after rendering ten years of service to post of Assistant Grade-II. Consequently this Court does not find any impediment in extending the benefit of judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ram Saran (supra) to the petitioner subject to decision of the special appeal pending against the judgment of Ram Saran (supra).

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 07.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the petition, is hereby set aside.

¶20

Respondents are directed to grant the benefit of judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ram Saran (supra) to the petitioner also.

¶21

Order of promotion, if any granted to the petitioner in pursuance to this order would be subject to the decision of Special Appeal Defective No. 1114 of 2019.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 prabhat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Namrata Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Forest U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namrata Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Forest U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashi Kant Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 4 Others

Razia Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko and 4 Others

Lal Mani Shukla Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Nand Kumar Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications, Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Lal Bahadur Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunications, Ministry of Comm. and 2 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communication and 2 Others