Surendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minor Irrigation and Ground Water , Lucknow and Others

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th June 2005 whereby petitioner's application for change of designation from the post of Helper to the post of Field Assistant has been rejected.

¶11

It is submitted that initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Helper on work-charge basis whereafter he was directed to perform duties of the post of Field Assistant. Learned counsel has adverted to the office memorandum dated 8th /12th October 1983 to submit that the said order provided for change of designation of all such employees who were functioning on other posts and also had requisite qualifications required for holding the said post. It is submitted that when benefit of the said government order was not provided to petitioner, he filed writ petition No. 787 (S/S) of 2012 which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 6th August 2018 primarily on the ground that the aforesaid government order dated 8th /12th October 1983, subsequently stood withdrawn vide order dated 10th October 1986. Special appeal (Defective) No. 415 of 2019 was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19th September 2019 whereafter the aforesaid judgments were challenged by petitioner before Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12564 of 2024 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 20th

¶12

WRIA No. 7995 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

November 2024.

¶15

It is submitted that Supreme Court in its judgment has clearly considered the aspect that the order dated 10th October 1986 in fact does not withdraw the earlier order pertaining to change of designation. It was also held that in view of the fact that petitioner was regularized as a Helper in a lower grade, directions were issued to competent authority to consider the question if petitioner was working as a Field Assistant and had the necessary qualification, whether he could be designated as such and paid the admissible pay scale.

¶16

It is submitted that it is in view of such directions issued by Supreme Court, impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's representation only on the ground that petitioner has never worked as a Field Assistant while admitting that he held the requisite qualifications for the said post. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to the order dated 2nd June 1997 which specifies work which is required to be performed by the Field Assistant at serial No. 6 of the appendix. Learned counsel has also adverted to the order dated 3rd September 1990 to submit that petitioner's name features therein for the work which was required to be performed by him and clearly comes within the scope of work which was required to be performed by Field Assistant.

¶17

Learned counsel has also adverted to paragraphs 12 and 19 of the writ petition to reiterate that petitioner had performed the work of Field Assistant. He has thereafter adverted to paragraph 9 of the counter to submit that the said aspect has been clearly admitted by opposite parties.

¶18

Learned state counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that petitioner although having qualification to hold the post of Field Assistant, never in fact conducted any such work as has been specified in the order dated 2nd, June 1997. It is submitted that since petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down by Supreme Court, his representation has been rightly rejected.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that

¶20

WRIA No. 7995 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper on work-charge basis and was subsequently regularized in service. He raised a dispute with regard to change of designation, which was agitated uptil Supreme Court, as indicated herein above. The Supreme Court,in its judgment and order has clearly referred the matter for reconsideration by the authority concerned on the twin questions as to whether petitioner fulfills the requisite qualification for holding the post of Field Assistant and whether he has ever worked on the said post.

¶23

A perusal of the judgment and order rendered by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12564 of 2024 clearly indicates a finding recorded by Supreme Court that the office memo of 1986 did not in terms withdraw the 1983 office memo or it was ever cancelled. It is clear that the office memorandum of 1983 grants a facility for change of designation on the basis of qualifications of a person to hold the posts to which redesignation is being sought. In its judgment, Supreme Court has thereafter directed the concerned authority to reconsider petitioner's case if he was working as a Field Assistant and had the necessary qualification for the post due to which he could be designated as such and paid the admissible pay scale. Relevant portion of the judgment and order rendered by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12564 of 2024 (supra) is as follows:-

¶24

" 12. Having considered the submissions, we find that, firstly, the 1986 Office Memo does not in terms withdraw the 1983 Office Memo or in terms cancelled it. Secondly, whether or not the appellant is entitled to be designated as Field Assistant after considering his educational qualification and the work discharged by him would be a question of fact to be examined by authorities."

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order makes it evident that the opposite parties have admitted that petitioner has requisite qualification for the post of Field Assistant. Although the impugned order has blandly indicated that the petitioner never functioned or carried out the duties of the post of Field Assistant, the same has been belied by the opposite parties themselves in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows:-

¶26

" That in reply to the contents of para 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that by office memo dated 03.09.1990 issued by the Executive Engineer, Ground Water Department, Faizabad Division (at present Gorakhpur Division), the petitioner was directed to

¶27

WRIA No. 7995 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

discharge the work related to the Field Assistant as pre requirement of work. It is necessary to clarify here that the previous process of change of post had already been abolished by means of order dated 10.10.1986 passed by the Director, Ground Water Department, Uttar Pradesh."

¶30

In view of the fact that while in the impugned order, petitioner's case has been rejected blandly without adverting to the government order dated 2nd June 1997 or even the work allocation order dated 3rd September 1990, in the counter affidavit, the opposite parties have clearly admitted the fact that petitioner was directed to discharge the work related to the post of Field Assistant as per requirement of work.

¶31

In view thereof, the twin questions formulated by Supreme Court in its judgment and order therefore stands satisfied in favor of petitioner.

¶32

Considering aforesaid, the impugned order dated 27th June 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to re-designate petitioner as Field Assistant and to ensure that he shall be paid the pay scale admissible to the post of Field Assistant. Requisite orders for the same shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the opposite parties.

¶33

In view of the fact that petitioner has already superannuated from service, benefits with regard to same shall be ensured with effect from 20th November 2024, which is the date of judgment and order passed by Supreme Court. Pensionary benefits to petitioner shall also be revised accordingly. The said revision prior to the aforesaid cut-off date, as indicated herein above, shall be on notional basis.

¶34

Resultantly, the petition succeeds as is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶35

September 19, 2025

¶36

prabhat

¶37

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶38

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

Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minor Irrigation and Ground Water , Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minor Irrigation and Ground Water , Lucknow and 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Parmanand Vs Honble High Court Judicature Thru. Registrar General and 5 Others

Gaurav Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhan U.P. Lko. and Others

Pno. No. 060490373 Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Varun Gupta and 10 Others vs State O U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical Education and Training and 2 Others

Ram Kishor vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Aneesh Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another