Dismissed¶16

State of Up and 2 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025WRIA/2956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of U.P. v. State Public Service Tribunal, WRIT - A No. 2956 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 7.3.2025 (Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Donadi Ramesh, JJ.). Keywords: U.P. Public Services Tribunal; Claim Petition No.1755 of 1994; District Panchayat Raj Officer; promotion w.e.f. 22.12.1990; officiating versus substantive/ad-hoc promotion; binding adjudication inter se parties; ACP regime promotional pay-scales after 8 and 14 years; Assistant Development Officer; writ petition by State dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Once a binding adjudication exists inter se between the parties, the mere fact that the State's consequential orders granted only officiating promotion to the respondent is not relevant and cannot defeat his entitlement. ¶14

State of Up and 2 Others vs State Public Service Tribunal and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent is entitled to be treated as District Panchayat Raj Officer w.e.f. 22.12.1990, with consequential promotional pay-scale benefits, notwithstanding that the State's consequential orders granted him only officiating/ad-hoc promotion. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

There being no other material to show that the respondent was found ineligible for promotion by the competent authority, the mere designation consequent upon his promotion as ad-hoc is not determinative of his entitlement.

¶15

Key takeaways

The U.P. Public Services Tribunal committed no error in enforcing the previous binding adjudication between the parties, whereby the respondent was held entitled to substantive promotion on the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer w.e.f. 22.12.1990.ratio¶15
Given the foregoing, the grant of benefit to the respondent under the ACP regime merits no interference.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Donadi Ramesh, JJ.) dismissed the State of U.P.'s writ petition (WRIT - A No. 2956 of 2025) challenging the U.P. Public Services Tribunal's order dated 01.05.2024, which had upheld respondent Jagdish Yadav's entitlement to be treated as District Panchayat Raj Officer w.e.f. 22.12.1990 and to promotional pay-scales under the ACP regime after 8 and 14 years (w.e.f. 22.12.1998 and 22.12.2004). The Tribunal's earlier adjudication in Claim Petition No.1755 of 1994, allowed on 25.11.1997 directing promotion w.e.f. 22.12.1990 when the respondent's juniors were promoted, had attained finality inter se the parties. The Court held that once such a binding adjudication exists, the fact that the State's consequential orders conferred only officiating/ad-hoc promotion is irrelevant; absent any material showing ineligibility found by the competent authority, the ad-hoc designation is not determinative. The Tribunal therefore committed no error in enforcing the prior adjudication, and the grant of ACP benefits merited no interference.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33438-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2956 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- State Of Up And 2 Others Respondent :- State Public Service Tribunal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Dr. D.K. Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

This petition is filed by the State challenging an order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, dated 01.05.2024 which holds that 2nd respondent is entitled to be treated as District Panchayat Raj Officer w.e.f. 22.12.1990 and that he would be entitled to promotional pay-scales after completion of 8 and 14 years, respectively w.e.f. 22.12.1998 and 22.12.2004, under ACP regime.

¶7

Undisputed facts that merge on record are that respondent Jagdish Yadav was appointed as Assistant Development Officer in 1979. The persons junior to him were promoted to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer on 22.12.1990 but his claim was overlooked. This led to the respondent filing of the claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal, being Claim Petition No.1755 of 1994. This claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide following orders passed on 25.11.1997:

¶8

"The claim petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the case of petitioner for giving him promotion to the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment w.e.f. 22.12.1990 when his juniors were promoted to the said post and, if he is found fit for promotion, he shall be given promotion from the said date and shall be paid all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary etc.

¶9

The opposite parties are directed to ensure compliance of this judgment within a period of three months from the date when a certified copy of this judgment is received by them.

¶10

Cost on parties."

¶11

The aforesaid order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, attained finality. However, when consequential orders were passed, the respondent was allegedly promoted on officiating basis and according to the petitioner since his promotion was not on substantive basis as such he could not have been treated as District

¶12

Panchayat Raj Officer w.e.f. 22.12.1990 so as to extend the benefit of the promotional pay-scale thereafter.

¶13

We have heard Sri Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioners and perused the materials on record.

¶14

Having gone through the materials placed before us, we do not find any substance in the grievance of the petitioners-State inasmuch as previous adjudication by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, holding that the respondent was entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 22.12.1990 on the post of the District Panchayat Raj Officer on the ground that persons junior to him were granted such promotion, has attained finality. Once such binding adjudication exists inter se between the parties, the mere fact that consequential orders of the State only granted officiating promotion to the respondent would not be relevant.

¶15

Since the adjudication by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, holding the respondent entitled to substantive promotion on the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer has become final inter se between the parties and there is no other material to show that the respondent was found ineligible for promotion by the competent authority, the mere designation consequent upon his promotion as ad-hoc would not be determinative. The U.P. Public Services Tribunal, in such circumstances, has committed no error in enforcing the previous binding adjudication between the parties whereby the respondent was held entitled to substantive promotion on the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer w.e.f. 22.12.1990.

¶16

Once that be so, the grant of benefit under the ACP regime merits no interference. The present writ petition is consequently dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 rkg

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of Up and 2 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Up and 2 Others v. State Public Service Tribunal and Another

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

Smt Maur Shri vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Pooja Devi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharmendra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ruksana Begam vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakuntala Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others