Daya Ram vs State of U.P.& Ors.

D.P. Mohapatra, C.J.

Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 143 96 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1109/92. In the said writ petition, the petitioner/appellant had prayed for a writ of mandamus to the oppositeparties/respondents to allow him to work on the post of Vahan Chalak since the date of his joining and pay the entire salary.

On being selected for the post of Vahan Chalak the appointment order dated 18491 (Annexure No. 1A to the writ petition) was issued in favour of the petitioner/appellant. In pursuance of the said appointment order, the petitioner/appellant joined the post of Vahan Chalak at Barabanki on 28691. Some time, thereafter, the opposite party/respondent No. 3 Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Ram Nagar, District Barabanki refused to assign the work and pay him salary, therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking relief noted above.

The learned Single Judge as the judgment shows declined to grant relief to the petitioner/appellant holding inter alia that he has no right to hold the post. He however made the following observations in the concluding paragraph of the judgment:

"However, in case the respondents make any appointment on the available vacancies, the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this order on respondent No. 2. It is expected that in case any appointment is made, the case of the petitioner would be considered first and if for any reason, the petitioner is not appointed, the respondents would pass a reasoned order rejecting the petitioner''s application for appointment."

As noted earlier, the petitioner/appellant has already been appointed on the post of Vahan Chalak vide appointment order dated 18491 (Annexure No. 1A). In the said appointment order, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment was till the date specified in the order and it was likely to be continued thereafter. The petitioner had already joined the post in pursuance of the appointment order, therefore, in the circumstances, it is our considered view that the questions of availability of the vacancy, consideration of the petitioner''s case for filling up such vacancy is not relevant. The simple question was whether there was any justification on the part of the opposite parties/respondents to deny the work to the petitioner/appellant. No such justification has been stated in the impugned judgment nor any justification for such action is placed before us.

On the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and the reasons stated therein, the present Special Appeal is allowed. The judgment/order da ted 14396 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1109 (SS) of 1992 is set aside. The writ petition No. 1109 (SS) of 1992 is allowed and the respondents are directed to assign the work to the petitioner/appellant forthwith. It goes without saying that the petitioner will receive the salary/emoluments admissible to him under Rules during the period he rendered service.