Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Yaqoob vs The State Of U.P. & Others on 20 December, 2012
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.19548 OF 2000
Mohd. Yaqoob. ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. Through the Engineer-in
Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P.,
Lucknow and others. ...Respondents
**********
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard Sri A.M.Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
It is the case of the petitioner that initially on 19.04.1973 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Seench Parvekshak/Amin in Work Charge in the office of Investigation and Planning Division of Irrigation Department, Mahoba and worked up to 15.05.1974. The service certificate of the aforesaid period dated 18.01.1975 issued by Executive Engineer is annexure-1 to the writ petition. Thereafter, on 10.05.1977 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Work Supervisor as Work Charge employee and thereafter, he was posted as Senior Work Supervisor w.e.f. 10.03.1981. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.05.1995 the petitioner's appointment has been regularised on the post of Seenchpal. The petitioner filed a representation claiming that his services should be regularised on the post of Seenchy Parvekshak and not on the post of Seenchpal. When nothing has been done, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24466 of 1995. The said writ petition was entertained on 05.09.1995 and as an interim measure the petitioner has been allowed to continue as Senior Work Supervisor. The said writ petition has been disposed of finally on 05.11.1999 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 01.01.2000, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In the representation, the petitioner has stated that he has worked for long time as Seench Parvekshak and the service of the juniors to the petitioner have been regularised on the post of Seench Parvekshak and, therefore, the service of the petitioner should also be regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that for the post of Seench Parvekshak six month's training was necessary as per Seench Parvekshak Seva Niyamavali, 1954, while the petitioner had not undergone training and the other three employees, who have been regularized, were trained Seench Parvekshak and, therefore, their services have been regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak. Being aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer dated 01.01.2000 the present writ petition has been filed.
An amendment application has been filed seeking the mandamus to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Seench Parvekshak instead of Seenchpal. During the pendency of the writ petition on 23.07.2012 an amendment application has been field seeking further relief in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.04.2012, by which the services of the petitioner on the post of Seench Parvekshak has been confirmed w.e.f. 01.09.2011. The date of the appointment of the petitioner is mentioned as 08.08.2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that services of the petitioner has wrongly been regularized as Seenchpal while the petitioner should be regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak. He further submitted that the services of the petitioner should have been regularised on the post of Seench Parvekshak on 06.08.2003, which will affect his pensionary benefits.
Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that when the claim of the regularization of the petitioner's service was considered, he had not undergone training for Seench Parvekahsk and, therefore, he was not eligible to be regularized on the post of Seench Parvekshak and his appointment could only be regularized on the post of Seenchpal. When the petitioner had undergone training his service has been regularized on the post of Seench Parvekahsk against the substantive vacancy on 06.08.2003 and subsequently, his service has been confirmed by order dated 13.04.2012 w.e.f. 01.09.2011. He further submitted that the petitioner has been engaged on 10.05.1977 as Work Supervisor as a Work Charge employee. The Work Charge employee is not Government servant. The payment of Work Charge is always made from the concerned project budget. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically denied that the petitioner has worked from 19.04.1973 to 15.05.1974. There is no record available regarding the work done by the petitioner from 19.04.1973 to 15.05.1974. It is further stated that the office of respondent no.3 was established in the year 1976 and the alleged work certificate, annexure-1 to the writ petition, was not issued from the office of answering respondent. In para 19 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was given regular appointment in the regular establishment on the post of Seenchpal on 25.05.1995 but the petitioner did not join on the post of Seenchpal and he refused the same and continued to work as Work Charged establishment upto 07.08.2003.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
I do not find any error in the impugned order and there is no substance in the relief sought by the petitioner. Seench Parvekshak seva Niyamavali, 1954 requires training for six months and passing of the examination for the appointment on the post of Seench Parvekshak. In the year 1995, the petitioner had not completed the training for six months and, therefore, he was not eligible for the post of Seench Parvekshak. Since he was only eligible for the post of Seenchpal, his appointment was regularized on the said post. However, when he has passed the examination and completed the training his service has been regularized against the substantive vacancy on the post of Seench Parvekshak on 06.08.2003.
The petitioner has been retired on 31.02.2012 and will be entitled for the pensionary benefits only in accordance to law. Since no prayer has been made relating to the pensionary benefits, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate the same9. It will be open to the petitioner to raise the claim about post retiral benefits and if raised, the same may be examined and adjudicated in accordance to law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Dt.20.12.2012
R./
