Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2667
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devi Prasad Singh, Vedpal, JJ.
R.N.Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Writ Petition No.443 (S/B) of 2008.
Decided On : 10-08-2010
The central legal point established in the judgment is the government's obligation to act uniformly and treat all employees equally, especially when empowered to exercise its powers under the relevant rules.
Headnote:
Seniority - Reckoning of Past Services - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, Rule 7 (1) of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 - Section 5-A, Rule 37 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for seniority and promotion based on past services, the exercise of powers by the State Government under Rule 37, and the principle of equal treatment of employees. The court highlighted the government's obligation to act uniformly and the unfairness in treating employees differently for the same category of services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reckoning of past services for seniority and promotion, which was not considered by the competent authority. The court directed the respondents to decide the representation in accordance with specific provisions but no finding was recorded with regard to parity claimed by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government had the power to deal with matters not covered by specific rules and regulations, and highlighted the obligation of the government to act uniformly and treat all employees equally.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim for seniority and promotion based on past services, the exercise of powers by the State Government, and the principle of equal treatment of employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the government's obligation to act uniformly and treat all employees equally, especially when empowered to exercise its powers under the relevant rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned orders and directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case within three months.
1. Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned standing counsel and perused record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in U.P. Jal Nigam on 5.2.1979. Thereafter, he was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer in Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi on 20.3.1982. Pursuant to appointment letter, the petitioner joined in Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi and relieved from Jal Nigam. After his joining in Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, the petitioner moved application dated 11.5.1984 for reckoning of his past services with regard to seniority and also claimed that keeping in view the past services, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The representation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.5.1984, was not considered by the competent authority. In the meantime, in the year 1984, one Sri Sushil Chandra Dwivedi, who joined Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, was given seniority after reckoning his past services i.e., 1992. It has been submitted by the learned standing counsel that Sri Sushil Chandra Dwivedi was an employee of Rajya Niyojan Sansthan.
3. The application moved by the petitioner was recommended by the then Vice-Chairman, Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi to the Government. In pursuance of the power conferred by Section 5-A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the services of the petitioner were absorbed in Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi by the State Government and later on, he was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer on 19.3.1994. The respondents has decided the case of Sushil Chandra Dwivedi and Sri S.B. Mishra and given seniority after reckoning their past services, vide order dated 6.11.1995. However, the order dated 6.11.1995 was withdrawn vide order dated 3.2.1997 but Sri Sushil Chandra Dwivedi was given seniority keeping in view the past services.
4. Reference has been given with regard to one such employee namely, Sri T.P.S. Tyagi, in para-28 of writ petition with specific pleading that he was an employee of U.P. Jal Nigam, and services were reckoned by the Development Authority for the purpose of the seniority.
5. So far as the case of Sri Dwivedi and Sri Mishra is concerned, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that they are Government employee hence, no parity can be extended to the petitioner. However, with regard to Sri T.P.S. Tyagi, it has been submitted by the learned standing counsel that the case of Tyagi stands on different ground. As to how Sri T.P.S. Tyagi who was an employee of Jal Nigam, may be treated differently than the petitioner, has not been disclosed in the counter affidavit. Learned standing counsel also could not specify the ground on the basis of which, past services of Sri T.P.S. Tyagi in Jal Nigam, was considered for the purpose of seniority and declined to extend the same benefit to the petitioner.
6. Earlier, the petitioner preferred writ petition which was disposed of finally directing the respondents to decide the representation keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Rule 7 (1) of the U.P. Development authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 as amended on 9.12.2002.
7. While rejecting petitioner's representation, the reason has been given that petitioner's case is not covered by the Rules. However, no finding has been recorded with regard to parity claimed by the petitioner with that of Sri T.P.S. Tyagi.
8. While submitting reply in para-9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the State Government has exercised powers with regard to others conferred on it in pursuance of provisions contained in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 37 of the U. P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 which is reproduced as under:
“37. Regulation of other matters.-(1) If any dispute or difficulty arises regarding int
