Disposed

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024SPLA/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court Bench addressed a Special Appeal dismissing the writ petition of Appellant Akshay Kumar Singh, who was appointed by deputation based on selection with no tenure stipulation. The Court stayed the impugned writ judgment as it failed to consider specific conditions of the Appellant's appointment letter which distinguished him from other appointees.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the operation of the impugned writ judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 until further orders.

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 104 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Akshay Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

This is a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules challenging the judgment and order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 4926 of 2023.

¶7

The grievance of the appellant is in a very limited compass. It appears that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment by deputation based on a selection. Based on the said appointment various appointments letters were issued. The appellants' appointment letter was dated 06.06.2019. In the said appointment letter it is clearly mentioned that the said appointment by deputation is based on a selection and no tenure was prescribed for the period of deputation. The said appointment letter is annexed at page 133 of the paper book.

¶8

We have gone through the said appointment letter. There were other appointment letters such as those issued on 31.01.2019 wherein it is provided that appointment on deputation was till regular selection was made or for a period of one year, whichever was earlier. There were appointment letters dated 26.02.2019 and 09.03.2019 wherein the appointment was simply till regular selection is made without stipulation of one year or in fact any period of deputation. All these writ petitions were clubbed together and have been decided by a common judgment. On a reading of the impugned judgment we find that orders dated 31.01.2019, 26.02.2019 and 09.03.20219 have been considered but the appointment order of the appellants herein dated 06.06.2019 has not been considered.

¶9

Be that as it may, the writ Court in its wisdom has dismissed the writ petitions based on the appointment letter dated 31.01.2019 on the ground that their appointment was till regular selection was made or for one year, whichever is earlier, therefore, they did not have any right to continue thereafter. In this context it has considered various Supreme Court decisions including

¶10

those rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2012)7SCC 757 and Union of India and Anr. Vs. S.N. Maity and Anr. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 164 and has recorded its opinion that those cases dealt with issue of curtailment of tenure of the deputation and it had been held therein that such curtailment is impermissible where the deputation has been made through selection. It was also held that such curtailment was impermissible where deputation had been made through selection and not through transfer. It has however also been indicated that curtailment of tenure of deputationists even through selection is permissible on specified condition. Now, considering the aforesaid decisions as also the decision in Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad in Writ - A No. 11172 of 2023 relating to similarly appointed deputationists wherein the right of persons who were appointed by deputation till regular selection was made or one year, was considered, it has dismissed the writ petition of such appointees.

¶11

However, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of those petitioners who were appointed vide orders dated 26.02.2019 and 09.03.2019 on the ground that there was no stipulation of any time of deputation and the appointment was till regular selection was made and the same not having been made they were entitled to continue.

¶12

In this very context it has also considered that it is the Director, Local Bodies who was the authority competent to take a decision but he had acted merely on the dictates of the State Government and had thereby surrendered his discretion in favour of the Higher Authorities which was impermissible. However, while doing so the learned writ Court inexplicably has omitted to consider the conditions of appointment by deputation of the appellants herein vide order dated 06.06.2019 who in fact were better placed than those whose writ petitions have been allowed in the sense that in the case of the appellants herein there was no such condition that their appointment by deputation which was based on selection and was distinct from deputation on transfer was till regular selection was made, therefore, on the logic and reasoning given by the learned writ Court, the appellants' writ should also have been allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly submitted that the counsel could not assist the writ Court properly and this fact escaped notice, however, he submitted that the error being so apparent the appellate Court itself should interfere in the matter and remedy the injustice caused by the dismissal of the appellants' case without consideration of facts and issues involved, especially, the conditions of appointment.

¶13

Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellants also informs the Court that the concerned department of

¶14

the Government has never withdrawn its consent given for allowing the appellants to appear in selection for appointment on deputation and for being sent on deputation.

¶15

On being confronted learned counsel for the State submitted that with the aforesaid scenario he could not dispute the fact that conditions of the appointment of the appellants could not be considered by the writ Court.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, prima face, case is made out and as there was an interim order also operating during pendency of the writ petition dated 12.07.2023, S.L.P. of the State against which has been dismissed, therefore, we stay the operation of the impugned judgment as also the order impugned before the learned writ Court till the next date of listing.

¶17

This order shall not come in the way if the Director, Local Bodies takes independent and considered decision as regards the continuation of the appellants on deputation based on the selection held but only in accordance with law and taking into consideration statutory provisions and not otherwise, uninfluenced by any direction of the State Government.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the State submits that in fact, in the advertisement these conditions were there but we find that learned Single Judge had considered this aspect of the matter and allowed the writ petitions of persons who have been appointed on 26.02.2019 and 09.03.2019 and as of now there is no appeal of the State against the judgment of the writ Court. As and when the appeal comes, if at all, it comes we can consider this aspect but as of now we can not discriminate. Even today, it is not the case that any regularly selected person has joined. In the event the aforesaid eventuality arises where the selected candidate is available for joining then also it is open for the State to move application for modification and vacation of this order.

¶19

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of six weeks.

¶20

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶21

List thereafter.

¶22

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 R.K.P.

¶24

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

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labor Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors. Vs Dhani Ram

C/M Shesh Nath Vidyalaya Thru. Manager and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Ors.

State of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow and Ors. Vs Vashistha Muni Mishra

Ram Chandra Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Meena Gaur and Others Vs Uco Bank Lko. Thru. Its Zonal Manager and Others