Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam Vishnoi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 October, 2014
Bench: Abhinava Upadhya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 31
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61104 of 2010
Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Vishnoi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S. K. Tyagi,H.M.B.Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,J.P. Pandey
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard Sri H.M.B.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The question involved in this writ petition is whether an employee of the Nagar Panchayat belonging to Non-Centralized Services can be absorbed into Centralized Services. The petitioner claims that he was appointed for a period of six months as Executive Officer, Town Area Committee, Chaprauli in the year 1979. Admittedly, the Rules, namely, U.P.Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 contemplates that an Executive Officer being a post of Centralized Service is to be filled up by the Commission.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Non-Centralized Service the petitioner was senior most and by a list dated 4.2.2008, 179 persons of Non-Centralized Services, who were working as Toll Amins, Clerks and Tax Collectors etc. in various Nagar Panchayat have been absorbed in the Centralized Service. List of 179 persons have been filed as Annexure-20 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the 179 persons promoted/absorbed to the post of Executive Officer in Centralized Services were all junior to the petitioner. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a list of 34 other persons were also published, who were absorbed in the Centralized Services from Non Centralized Services, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary counter affidavit by the respondents wherein also it has been stated that these 34 persons have been promoted/absorbed in Centralized Services illegally and, therefore, the said list has been cancelled. For the above 179 persons the stand of the respondents is that all these 179 persons were granted approval by the State Government and, therefore, they have been transferred and absorbed from Non-Centralized Services to Centralized Services.
Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents is not able to indicate any provision of law under which such an approval could be granted by the State Government for absorption of Non-Centralized Service Employee into Centralized Services. On the contrary the Rule prohibits such an absorption. Therefore, the question for consideration in these writ petitions are that under what circumstances and under which provisions of law the State Government had granted approval to 179 persons to be absorbed and transferred to Centralized Services whereas the claim of the petitioner was ignored. The aforesaid query is being raised by the Court repeatedly but till date no specific answer has been provided by the State authorities.
As a last opportunity learned Standing Counsel is granted a month's time to file a specific affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2-Director, Local Bodies, 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow to justify the absorption of 179 persons from Non-Centralized Services to the Centralized Services and why the petitioner has been left out, who admittedly is the senior most employee under the Non-Centralized Services.
List this matter after one month.
Order Date :- 14.10.2014/SKM
