Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 2 ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 8138 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 992 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- R.K.Pandey,S.P. Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

The substantive appointment of the appellant was on the post of a senior clerk. Thereafter in an internal arrangement he was directed to perform the duties of Camp Assistant (Steno), which order was approved on 27.3.1991 and then by order dated 28.9.1995, the aforesaid order of 1991 was withdrawn. Challenging the same the appellant/petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 30249 of 1995 which was dismissed on the ground that the substantive appointment of the petitioner was of a senior clerk and only on internal arrangement he was directed to work as Camp Assistant (Steno) and as such he has no right to hold the post of Camp Assistant (Steno). Challenging the said judgment and order dated 29.1.2013 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, this appeal has been filed.

Heard Sri RK Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned standing counsel for the Respondents.

The counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that the substantive appointment of the petitioner was on the post of senior clerk and not on the post of Camp Assistant. However, it has been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was duly promoted on the post of Steno in the year 2005 and has since been continuing to work on the said post. Thus, in fact, the writ petition had become infructuous, and because the petitioner could not point out that he has already been promoted as Steno, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no interference is called for with the order dated 28.9.1995.

Learned standing counsel has has not disputed that if the appellant has already been promoted from the post of senior clerk to Steno in the year 2005, and is since then  been working on the promoted post,  the same should not be disturbed.

In such view of the matter, we dispose of the appeal with the observations that regular promotion, if any,  has been granted to the petitioner on the post of Steno in the year 2005 during pendency of the writ petition, such promotion order shall not be disturbed merely because of dismissal of the writ petition.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.11.2014

SKS

(Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)