AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The batch of Letters Patent Appeals arise out of
common judgment and order dated 25.02.2015 passed by
learned Single Judge of this Court in the batch of writ
applications and are being disposed of by this common order.
Sri P. K. Shahi, learned Senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate, led the arguments on behalf of
the appellants, whereas Mr. Lalan Kumar, Assistant Counsel
to G.P.-IX has assisted the court on behalf of the State.
The appellants moved this court by filing the writ
applications for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the State respondents to make entire payment of
arrear of salary which according to the petitioners-appellants
became due since October, 1984. They also prayed for a
direction to the State respondents to convert temporary
service of the petitioners-appellants from temporary to
permanent, as according to the petitioners-appellants, they
were working on temporary appointments since last about
17 years.
The learned Single Judge examined the claims of
the writ petitioners and after tracing the history as to mode
and manner in which the writ petitioners came to be
appointed as Tax Collector without there being any
advertisement or availability of a sanctioned post in the then
Notified Area Committee concluded that in fact their very
engagement/appointments were back door appointments
without following any procedure.
The learned Single Judge also rejected the claim
for salary keeping in view the order of the Division Bench of
this court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1440/1992, in the case of
one of the writ petitioners, Rajdhari Prasad. The said Rajdhari
Prasad preferred SLP(C) No. 22670/1994, where the Notified
Area Committee admitted that the said petitioner had
worked for 2600 days and, therefore, he was paid for the said
period of work rendered by him at the rate of Rs. 8/- per day.
The learned Single Judge having taken note of the
earlier judgment of this court as well as the Hon''ble Supreme
Court found that this is not in dispute that the petitioners
were paid their salary up to September, 1984, but the writ
application was filed seeking direction for payment of salary
for the entire period of about 14 years with an inordinate and
unexplained delay of 14 years. The case of said Rajdhari
Prasad was distinguished on the ground that he had
approached the court in the year 1990.
Before us, the learned Senior counsel has placed
reliance upon a calculation chart of the salary paid,
admissible and due, as contained in Annexure-10 to the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner
before the learned Single Judge.
Submission of learned Senior counsel is that the
petitioners-appellants were entitled for the pay scale for the
post of Tax Collector but right from the year 1981 till
December 1998 they have worked, but the chart would show
that they have been paid some amount till February 1992
only. Learned Senior counsel, therefore, submits that the
petitioners-appellants should be paid their difference in
wages as per the pay scale attached to the post of Tax
Collector in the then Notified Area Committee.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that the Notified Area Committee is no longer in
existence. It is categorical stand of the respondents in the
writ application that no work was taken from the petitioners- appellants after 16.02.1991 by the Notified Area Committee,
Maharajganj. It is also a categorical stand of the respondents
Nos. 2 & 3 that the then Vice-Chairman of the Notified Area
Committee, Maharajganj had appointed 70 persons such as
the petitioners, and all those appointments were illegal and
procedures for appointment were not followed. As such the
then Chairman-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwan had
cancelled all those appointments.
We have considered the rival submission and
perused the pleadings exchanged by the parties before the
learned Single Judge. We find force in the submission of
learned counsel for the State, as it appears that the
engagement of these petitioners-appellants were done
without following established procedure for appointment
and in fact it is a clear case of back door appointments. As
per their own calculation chart, the petitioners-appellants
were paid up to February, 1992 the admissible amount but
not paid a single paisa after February, 1992. The stand of the
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is that no work was taken from these
petitioners since February, 1991. In these circumstances, the
learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of
the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and
Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436.
The relevant paragraph 36 relied upon by the learned Single
Judge from the said judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court is
reproduced here-in-below:
"36. Therefore, it is a settled legal preposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the noticeboard, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."
We are of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge has correctly dismissed the writ applications on
the ground of inordinate delay in approaching the court
particularly where the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have
categorically denied taking any work from these petitioners
since February, 1991 and their entitlement, as claimed, and further on the ground that the appointment/engagement of
these petitioners being in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India, they are not entitled to any relief, as
prayed for. No illegality or infirmity may be found with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
These Letters Patent Appeals have no merit and
are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.