Karan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Krishna, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents No. 2 and 3 -Greater Noida Industrial Development 2. Authority and have perused the record.

Time was granted to Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh to obtain instructions, which he states that he has received. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

The case of the Petitioners is that they were initially engaged by the Respondent-Authority as Assistant Manager (Project) on contract basis. According to the Petitioners there were 27 such persons who had been appointed and all the 27 persons have already been regularized. The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the date from which the regularization is to be given effect to. Five of such 27 persons had filed Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 23.6.2011 with the following directions:

The Opposite Parties are directed to consider the regularization of the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. the date of existence of vacancy i.e. 20.11.02 in accordance with the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court and also grant them all consequential service benefits arising out of it. Compliance of the orders be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

The Petitioners herein alongwith two other persons had also filed Claim Petition No. 1116 of 2011, which has been dismissed as not maintainable by judgment and order dated 5.8.2011, which order is under challenge in this writ petition.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the order passed by the Tribunal in the earlier Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011 filed by identically situated persons was binding on the Tribunal and their case ought to have been allowed in the same tar Ms. It is submitted that while deciding the claim petition of the Petitioners the Tribunal has taken note of some order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the High Court whereas there was no such order of the High Court relating to Petitioners'' case. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Authority has also accepted that there was no such order of the High Court dated 19.3.2010. On the other hand, there was an order dated 13.1.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1432 of 2005 in pursuance of which the order dated 23.6.2011 was passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011.

What we find from the order of the Tribunal is that the claim petition has been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the services of similarly situated persons such as the Petitioners have already been regularized with effect from 20.11.2002 by the Tribunal vide his judgment dated 23.6.2011 which is in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court and as such the claim petition filed by the Petitioners was not maintainable and was dismissed. Interestingly, though the similarly situated persons have already been granted regularization and the Tribunal accepts that the relief claimed has already been granted but because such relief has been granted in some other claim petition to other similarly situated claimants, the claim petition of the Petitioners has been held to be not maintainable.

Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh could not justify the order passed by the Tribunal.

In our view, the Petitioners being similarly situated as those claimants who had filed earlier Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011 which was with the same prayer, they would be entitled to the same relief, which has been granted by order of the Tribunal dated 23.6.2011 passed in the aforesaid claim petition.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 5.8.2011 passed in Claim Petition No. 1116 of 2011 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and also in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 174 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.