Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Law (Judicial), U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16006-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 47 of 2024 Appellant :- Om Prakash Respondent :- State of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Law (Judicial), U.P. Govt. Lucknow and others Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Isha Mittal (A.C.S.C.), Gaurav Mehrotra, Vijay Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 13429 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶6

The writ petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order dated 05.01.2019 passed by District Judge, Hardoi, whereby the representation made by the appellant pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 01.10.2018 in Writ Petition No. 28367 (S/S) of 2018 was rejected.

¶7

The representation was made by the appellant, inter alia , indicating that he was getting salary less than his juniors, he has not been granted any promotion and benefit of A.C.P. and has been deprived of other benefits.

¶8

The District Judge by order dated 05.01.2019, noticed that the appellant was accorded appointment on 01.05.1980 and retired on 31.05.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation, whereafter noted the indications made in the service-book of the appellant since the year 1983 which reflected adverseentries in the years 1983, 1984, 1985-86, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997-98, punishment on 10.04.1997, adverse entries in the years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05. It was thereafter noticed that on 27.08.2014, he was granted benefit of first A.C.P. Observations were also made that against the

¶9

punishments and adverse-entries, neither any representation nor appeal nor writ petition was filed during the service period and after superannuation on 31.05.2018, petition has been filed and consequently rejected the representation.

¶10

Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed, wherein learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was punished on several occasions for dereliction of duty, one of the condition for grant of A.C.P. is satisfactory service and, therefore, no case for interference was made out and dismissed the writ petition.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition by merely observing that the appellant was punished on several occasions for dereliction of duty. Submissions have been made that under the A.C.P. Scheme, the candidature of the appellant was required to be considered and appropriate order should have been passed by the competent committee and merely because certain adverse entries were awarded/punishments were imposed, is not a reason enough for the denial of A.C.P. Submissions were made that persons junior to the appellant were granted A.C.Ps. which is not justified. Attempt was also made to allege that the adverse-entries were not properly communicated to the appellant and, therefore, the same cannot form the basis for denial of the A.C.P. and, therefore, the orders impugned passed by District Judge and learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the appellant served for over 38 years, the A.C.P., as claimed by him, became due many years ago, however, no claim/representation was made in this regard. The plea raised

¶13

regarding non communication of the adverse-entries is baseless, no pleas with regard to the purported non communication and non consideration of petitioner’s candidature by the Committee have been set-up anywhere in the case and, therefore, the offhand submissions made cannot be considered and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶15

The representation made by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court was absolutely cursory. Except for alleging that those juniors to the appellants were getting more salary than the appellant and that he was not paid the increments and A.C.P., nothing else was indicated. The District Judge by order impugned gave out the entire service history of the appellant whereby several adverse entries and punishment were awarded/imposed on him and during the course of his service, first A.C.P. based on his eligibility was allowed to him on 27.08.2014. The appellant has not made any mention of having been granted the first A.C.P. Once the first A.C.P. was granted on 27.08.2014 and appellant retired on 31.05.2018, there was no occasion thereafter for granting him another A.C.Ps. inasmuch the second A.C.P. is granted after six years of grant of first A.C.P. and third A.C.P. is granted after five years of second A.C.P.

¶16

So far as the plea sought to be raised orally pertaining to the manner of communication of adverse-entries and non consideration of appellant’s candidature for grant of A.C.Ps. is concerned, without laying factual foundation for the same either in the representation and/or in the writ petition, raising the same orally, cannot be countenanced and no credence can be given to such submissions.

¶17

In view of above fact situation, no case for interference is made out in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Mukesh Pal/P.Sri.

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Law (Judicial), U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Law (Judicial), U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Minority and Waqfs,Lko and Another vs Syed Rafaat Ali and Another

U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Ravi Ranjan vs P.S. Global New Delhi Thru. Its Partner

Harilal Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Confidential and Vigilance Lko. and Another Vs Deepak Yadav

Dipendra Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. and 6 Others

Chin Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others