Allowed recall of dismissal and restoration of writ petition. Dismissed writ petition challenging lack of salary and regularisation of services due to absence of sanctioned post.
Recall of dismissal order without prosecution allowed; writ petition for salary and regularisation dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19507
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9251 of 1993 Petitioner :- Chaandradaiya Prakash Misra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K. Pandey,Indra Pratap Singh,Narendra Singh,Panna Lal Gupta,Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Orders on Application No.12 of 2022
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the recall application.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has not filed any objection against condonation of delay therefore, delay in filing the recall application is condoned.
The application is allowed.
Orders on C.M. Application No.13 of 2022
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 21.04.2014 whereby the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
No objection has been filed by the State.
Cause shown for non-appearance is sufficient.
The order dated 21.04.2014 is hereby, recalled.
The application is allowed.
The writ petition is restored to its original number.
Orders on Memo of writ petition
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to make payment of monthly salary to the petitioner according to pay-scale as admissible according to rules issued from time to time from the date of appointment dated 01.09.1982 with the arrears of 18% compound interest and
also appoint the petitioner on the post of village Panchayat Officer ;
(ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner as per provision of the G.O. issued by the State Government cited above as well as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court and High Courts in numerous cases."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 01.09.1982 on the post of Udyog Sahayak at Darshan Nagar Panchayat Industry, District Faizabad on fixed salary of Rs.200/- p.m. by order of Chief Manager, Panchayat Industry, Darshan Nagar, Faizabad. Submission is that he should be paid monthly salary according to pay-scale as admissible from time to time from the date of issuance of the appointment letter.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has taken specific stand in his counter affidavit that the petitioner was never appointed on substantive vacancy and the post is also not vacant. The Gram Panchayat used to engage the Assistant Udyog Sahayak. The other stand taken in para 10 of the counter affidavit that appointment was not in accordance with the selection procedure, the said post is not a sanctioned post and also and there is no cadre of such post therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has denied the averments of the counter affidavit in rejoinder affidavit but he is unable to point out whether the post in question was sanctioned by the State Government. Learned counsel has not been able to show whether appointment was made in accordance with law particularly in view of the fact that the post was not sanctioned by the State Government.
After going through the record, I find no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is consigned to record.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner may seek legal remedy, if any, under the law.
Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Pks
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears from 01.09.1982 and regularisation of services as Village Panchayat Officer.
Whether the appointment on 01.09.1982 was valid and on a sanctioned post.
Whether the cause shown for condonation of delay in recalling the dismissal order was sufficient.
Chaandradaiya Prakash Misra
State of U.P.
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
