State of U.P. and Others vs K.P. Singh and Others

U.K. Dhaon and Devi Prasad Singh, JJ.—Heard Sri S.C. Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K, Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite pasty No. 1,

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.2.3.2007 passed by I he Stale Public Service Tribunal, Lueknow by which the claim petition pillared by opposite party No. 1 was allowed and the order dated 19.7.2007 by which the review petition preferred by the-petitioner was dismissed, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appointed opposite party No. 1 as District Supply Officer on the basis of the Combined Stale Service Competitive Examination in the year 1968. The petitioner (sic-opposite party No. 3) was initially appointed on 12 9.1969 and later on he was confirmed w.e.f. 12.9.1974 by the order dated 15.1.1980. The opposite party No. 1 was promoted to the post of District Supply Officer, Grade-II on 1.6.1973 and Grade-1 on 22.12.1978. As personal promotional pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5000 was not paid to the opposite party No. 1 and it was provided to opposite party No. 3 who was junior to the petitioner (sic-opposite party No. 1) a claim petition u/s 4 of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976 was filed before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lueknow. The claim petition was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2007. The petitioners thereafter filed a review petition, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the order dated 19.7.2007.

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the opposite party No. 1 is not entitled for promotional pay-scale as till date his service has not been regularized, lie further submits mat the parity was claimed by the opposite party No. 1 with opposite party No. 3 whose service was regularized by the State Government and the Tribunal in a most arbitrary and illegal manner has allowed the claim petition preferred by the opposite party No. 1 and directed the petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party No. 1 for grant of personal promotional pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 w.e.f. the due date in accordance with the Government Order dated 8.8.1996.

Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and the opposite party No. 1 is entitled for promotional pay-scale as he has completed 14 years of service in the cadre.

We have considered the. submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party No. 1 was appointed as District Supply Officer on the basis of the Combined State Service Competitive Examination in the year 1968. The petitioner (sic-opposite party No. 1) was promoted to the post of District Supply Officer Grade-II on 1.6.1973 and Grade-I on 22.12.1978. It is admitted case of the parties that promotional pay-scale was granted to the opposite party No, 3 who is much junior to the opposite party No. 1.

The record reveals that an adverse entry was awarded to the opposite party No. 1 for the year 1978-79 against which a representation was made by the opposite party No. 1, which is still undisposed of.

The Tribunal relying upon the Constitution Bench, decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court: in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, has allowed the claim petition preferred by the opposite part) No. 1. Para 20 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows:

In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continue:. in the post for a fairly long period, then such an appointment cannot had held to be ''stopgap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc. In this view of the matter, the reasoning and basis on which the appointment of the promotees in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the case of hand was held by the High Court to be ''fortuitous/ad-hoc/stopgap'' are wholly erroneous and, therefore, exclusion of those appointees to have the continuous length of service for seniority is erroneous.

It is admitted case of the parties that promotional pay-scale to the opposite party No. 3 was granted only on the ground that he has completed 14 years of regular satisfactory services in the cadre. The Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party No. 1 for grant of promotional pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5000 w.e.f. the due date in accordance with, the Government Order dated 8.8,1996.

We are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and. order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.