Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
U.P.P.C.L. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-A. No. 50301 of 2014
Decided On: 03-03-2020
For the Appellant : Siddharth Khare and Ashok Khare
For the Respondent: A.K. Mehrotra and Abhishek Srivastava, S.C.
Headnote:
Service Laws – Claim of petitioner for seniority – Writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the claim of petitioner for seniority as well as for grant of benefit of Old Pension Scheme has been turned down. – Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for extending benefit of increment and revision of pay-scale w.e.f. May 1996. – Held, It clear that seniority of the candidate would be determined only from the date when he joins the service, but in the present case no such rider was placed by the Court, while passing the order, and moreover the Court had recorded the fact that respondents had failed to justify why petitioners were denied appointment though they were higher in merit than the person who was given appointment. – Thus the order impugned having failed to adjudicate upon issue as to why petitioners are not entitled to seniority from candidates selected from the same advertisement though they were given appointment at different point of time. – Once it is found that respondents had discriminated and failed to follow the rules while giving appointments to the various candidates selected from the one and same advertisement, then respondents cannot deny to extend the benefit of seniority and other benefits so applicable for no fault of such candidates and their action having been decided in the Court of law and found to be discriminatory and non-judicious, the order impugned is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed. – Court find that this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Sonakar (AIR Online 2019 All 2260)(supra) while deciding the claim of some of persons appointed later to cut-off date had held that as benefit which was passed on to other candidates, who were selected from the same advertisement and were given benefit of old pension scheme, the candidates offered appointment later to the cut-off date were also entitled for the same relief. – In the present case as it was the unjustified action of the respondent Nigam who had deprived petitioners of their legitimate claim of appointment in the year 1996 itself when the scheme of old pension was applicable and was extended to other so selected candidates from the advertisement of the year 1992/93, petitioners are also entitled for the same, and the same cannot be defeated by wrongful denial of respondent in giving appointment at the right time. – Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Power Corporation.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the claim of petitioner for seniority as well as for grant of benefit of Old Pension Scheme has been turned down. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for extending benefit of increment and revision of pay-scale w.e.f. May 1996.
3. Facts, in brief, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that General Manager, Anpara-B, Thermal Power Project, Sonbhadra, which was a part of U.P. State Electricity Board, had issued an advertisement on 19.10.1992 and 20.10.1992 inviting applications for 93 posts of Supervisor (Thermal) for appointment at Anpara-B Thermal Power Plant at Sonbhadra. By corrigendum published on 31.10.1993 the post of Supervisor (Thermal) was redesignated as post of Junior Engineer (Thermal). Petitioners along with other candidates applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Thermal) (Mechanical). Interview was held by the Selection Committee between the period 27.06.1994 and 21.07.1994, in the said interview petitioners also appeared and qualified. It appears that, thereafter, a select list was prepared but was not published. From the said alleged list 38 persons were appointed as Junior Engineer (Thermal).
4. Petitioners along with two other candidates approached this Court through writ petition No. 23555 of 1997 for a direction upon the respondent State Electricity Board to declare result of selection held pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.10.1993 and 20.10.1993. This Court on 12.01.2001 held that selection does not confer indefeasible right to be appointed and writ petition was dismissed. Against the said order, special appeal No. 139 of 2001 was filed and in the said appeal the Corporation was directed to produce relevant records qua the selection. It was found that result was prepared but was not published. It was also noted that petitioner No. 1 got 47 marks while petitioner No. 2 obtained 49 marks, the Court also observed that one Sudhir Kumar having scored lesser mark than the petitioners was offered appointment for which no explanation was furnished. On 21.04.2008 while deciding the special appeal, the Court directed the Appointing Authority to offer appointment to both the petitioners within one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the same, Deputy General Manager, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited issued appointment order on 30.06.2008, the same has been brought on record as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition.
5. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 joined the respondent Nigam on 24.07.2008, while petitioner No. 2 joined on 16.07.2008 at Anpara Thermal Power Project as Junior Engineer (Mechanical). Their services were regularized vide order dated 23.04.2011 w.e.f. 17.12.2010. It appears that the regularisation order dated 23.04.2011 was modified on 11.11.2013 and the services of the petitioners stood regularized from 16.12.2010. Once the services of the petitioners stood regularized they sought seniority on the basis of appointment letter which provided that the same shall be in accordance with the names of the persons falling in the merit list, however, it shall be effective after regularisation. Petitioners claimed that they were placed at serial Nos. 47 and 49 respectively in the select list and one Sudhir Kumar who was appointed prior to them was at serial No. 52 in the merit list was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 23.02.2006.
6. Further, petitioners claimed that they are entitled for the pension governed under the Old Pension Scheme as the delay in issuing the appointment orders was due to arbitrary action of the respondent authorities and they cannot be denied the said benefit. Ventilating their grievance number of representations were moved by the petitioner
