2002 Supreme(All) 1520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. N. Srivastava, J.
HARIHAR PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 13179 Of 1988
Decided On : 10/23/2002
A.P.TEVARI, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Ashok Khare, P.N.SRIVASTAV, R.C.SHUKLA, Syed Ali Murtaza, V.K.SINGH
Temporary appointment cannot continue beyond one year under Section 108, Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959.
Headnote:
Exemption - Employment Dispute - U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, Section 108
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as First Aid Khalasi and later promoted as Meter Reader. He was allowed to work as Pipe Line Inspector with the condition of no additional salary. After receiving exemption from basic qualification, he was paid as Pipe Line Inspector and Meter Reader. He was later reverted and raised a dispute against his reversion.
Finding of the Court:
The labour court found the reversion to be in accordance with the law as the petitioner was not appointed on a regular or permanent basis after exemption was granted. The court also rejected claims of discrimination and violation of rules.
Issues: Validity of reversion, Discrimination, Violation of Rules
Ratio Decidendi: Temporary appointment cannot continue beyond one year, reversion was in accordance with the law, no discrimination or violation of rules found.
Final Decision: The writ petition failed and was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 8. 4. 1988 published on 16. 5. 1988 by the labour court. Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which the reference made by State Government was decided against petitioner.
( 2 ) THE facts borne out from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as First Aid Khalasi in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, on 18. 12,1951 and was promoted as Meter Reader with effect from 6. 12. 1954.
( 3 ) BY order dated 21. 7. 1972, the petitioner was allowed to work as Pipe Line Inspector in addition to his work on substantive post of Meter Reader on the condition that he shall not be paid any additional salary or allowance till any order of exemption from the basic qualification was received from the Commissioner. This order was for three months or till the appointment as per rules is made whichever was earlier.
( 4 ) THE Commissioner by order dated 7. 3. 1973 granted exemption of basic qualification as required under U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Services (Designations, Scales of Pay Qualifications, conveyance, Allowance and Method of Recruitment) Order 1963 under Rule 8 (2) of the order aforesaid for payment of additional amount for additional work as Pipe Line Inspector. The commissioner further directed to make permanent appointment.
( 5 ) AFTER receiving the order of Commissioner, the petitioner who was working on temporary basis, was paid salary In the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 of Pipe Line Inspector and was also given l/5th salary of the Meter Reader In addition to said salary. He was reverted by order dated 16. 7. 1973.
( 6 ) A dispute was raised by the petitioner against his reversion initially before the U. P. Public services Tribunal and subsequently before labour authorities. The State of U. P. of made following reference to labour court :
"whether the order of reversion from the post of Pipe Line Inspector to the post of Meter Reader was legal. If not, what compensation he is entitled?"
( 7 ) AS stated above, the labour court decided reference against petitioner. The labour court recorded finding that the reversion of the petitioner by order dated 16. 7. 1973, was in accordance with law. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that Harihar Prasad was not having basic qualification for the post and was not granted exemption.
( 8 ) SRI A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the findings recorded by the tribunal are perverse, the petitioner was granted exemption from basic qualification arid is entitled to be treated as substantive promotion. Findings recorded to the contrary are liable to be set aside. He urged that the reversion order was not passed in accordance with law. He referred annexures-1 and 3 to the supplementary-affidavit to show that the petitioners appointment on the post of Pipe Line Inspector was made in accordance with law and Commissioner has granted exemption for the said post and he was rightly paid salary in the pay scale of Pipe Line inspector. He also urged that Rule 31 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 and further urged that the impugned order is discriminatory Inasmuch as juniors to petitioner, were promoted and allowed to continue as Pipe Line Inspector.
( 9 ) SRI P. N. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Jal Sansthan, Varanasi, In reply to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was never selected or approved for promotion on substantive basis. He did not have basic qualification. He was initially appointed for 3 months under Section 108 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. No temporary appointee could continue beyond one year as such he was rightly reverted within one year by order dated 16. 7. 1973. He urged that exemption was granted for payment of salary for his work as Pipe Line Inspector in addition to work as Meter Reader for the period he worked. Sri P. N. Srivastava produced original service record as directed by the order dated 2. 8. 20