Vinod Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1175 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 15168 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Laltaprasad Misra,Prafulla Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Mani Tripathi,J P Maurya,Jagdish Prasad Maurya,Mudit Agarwal,Prem Shanker Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Dr. V.K. Singh, Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the opposite party No.3, by means of which, the services of the petitioner have been terminated for the reason that his writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013 has been dismissed by the High Court on 24.04.2017. However, there was no other reason with the opposite parties to terminate the petitioner from service except the judgment and order dated 24.04.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013.

The precise facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as honorarium Lecturer (Philosophy) against a substantive vacancy, which had fallen due to retirement of Dr. S.B. Nigam in Yuvraj Dutta Post Graduate College, Lakhimpur Kheri, subject to approval of the Director, Higher Education, Allahabad (now Prayagraj) following the procedure provided in Government Order dated 07.04.1998. Since in the institution in question one vacancy in the Department of Philosophy fell vacant in the year 2005 due to resignation of one Dr. Yogendra Singh, so the proceeding for making fresh selection of honorarium Lecturer (Philosophy) against the said post was initiated by issuing an advertisement in the light of the Government Order dated 07.04.1998 and the petitioner, who was having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, was appointed on the post of honorarium Lecturer (Philosophy). As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner after being appointed was allowed to continue for the session 2005-2006 and for next academic session 2006-2007 and onwards till the date of his termination dated 01.05.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the amended provisions of Section 31 (e) of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Amendment Act), 2018, the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for regularization, therefore, the direction may be issued to the effect that after reinstating the petitioner in service and taking into account his continuity in service, he may be regularized on the post in question notwithstanding the impugned termination order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since the petitioner was regularly discharging his duties of honorarium Lecturer (Philosophy) since 2006 and his services have been terminated for the sole reason that his writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017 and this Court has reviewed its order dated 24.04.2017 and allowed the said review application and the writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2020, therefore, the impugned termination order dated 01.05.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same may be quashed and the petitioner may be granted consequential benefits i.e. reinstatement in service on the same post.

There are some factual developments in the present matter but those are not necessary to be dealt with now for the reason that the Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017 was again heard on the review application bearing Review Application No.56902 of 2017 filed in the said writ petition and this Court was pleased to allow the said review application and the Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2020, therefore, the impugned order of termination dated 01.05.2017 is liable to be tested in terms of judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed in review application. For convenience, the order dated 19.02.2020 is being reproduced here-in-below:-

"(Review Application No. 56902 of 2017)

By this application, review of the judgment dated 24.04.2017 has been sought.

It is a case where the State Government issued an order dated 22.07.1986 permitting Committee of Management of degree colleges to make appointment of part time Lecturers on fixed honorarium. Subsequently an order was issued by the State of U.P. on 07.04.1998. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, part time Lecturers were engaged on fixed honorarium in various degree colleges. They were paid honorarium, as was arranged in the order of their engagement.

In view of above, the Lecturers engaged on honorarium basis were not getting regular pay-scale even at the minimum. Hence, litigation came before this Court to claim regular pay-scale on the post of Lecturer. One of the case was at the instance of Km. Renu Tiwari and Ors. vs. Director, Higher Education and Ors. by W.P. No. 4812 of 1988 (SB) decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.10.1996.

Subsequently, similar litigation was taken up by many other similarly placed by filing the writ petitions and one Bunch of writ petition led by W.P. No. 1175 (SB) of 2009 was decided by this Court by judgment dated 22.12.2010. The direction thereon was for payment of salary in terms of the judgment in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari (supra). Petitioner also approached this Court to claim similar benefits. The writ petition therein was dismissed by the judgment sought to be reviewed. It was after taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court and of this Court in reference to claim for regularization and the regular pay-scale though, the petitioner had not claimed the benefit of regularization or regular pay-scale. The benefit extended to others in terms of the judgments referred above was claimed. The writ petition was dismissed ignoring the earlier judgments.

Learned counsel for review applicant submits that by dismissing the writ petition, a discrimination has been caused among the similarly placed by considering the issue in reference to the claim of regularization and regular pay-scale ignoring the prayer in the writ petition. The prayer was to extend the benefit granted to similarly placed.

It is also on the ground that now by virtue of the judgment sought to be reviewed, a contradictory judgment exists on the subject-matter and it is for the reason that earlier judgment in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) and judgment in the Bunch of writ petition led by W.P. No. 1175 (SB) of 2009 has not been considered though cited during the course of argument. The prayer is thus to review the judgment so as to make petitioner at par with similarly placed.

This review application has been contested by learned standing counsel. He submits that petitioner was engaged as part-time Lecturer on fixed honorarium. The payment was on lecture basis and that too, making it limited to certain Lectures. The period of engagement was only of 11 months thus the claim made by the petitioner to extend benefit similar to what has been given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) should not be given. Prayer is to dismiss the review application.

We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

We find that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner to claim parity with similarly placed and therefore it was to grant the benefit, as has been extended to others part time Lecturers engaged on fixed honorarium. The reference of the judgment in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) and the W.P. No. 1175 (SB) of 2009 is relevant as the issue raised in the said writ petition was decided by a detailed judgment. Similarly placed Lecturers were extended benefit of pay-scale at its minimum which is denied to the petitioner considering it to be a case for regularization or regular pay-scale.

In the light of the aforesaid, we find reason to cause interference in the order sought to be reviewed rather the judgment is recalled for the aforesaid to substitute it by the present judgment to allow benefit to the petitioner at par with what has been given by this Court in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari (supra). It may however be with the clarification that petitioner was terminated subsequent to the judgment sought to be reviewed and separate litigation for it is pending.

In any case, the benefit arising out of the judgment on the review petition would be made available to the petitioner for the period of service before the termination. If the termination is set aside by this Court in the pending litigation then petitioner is given liberty to seek a direction for extension of the benefit further, as given in this case. The judgment dated 24.04.2017 is reviewed even to maintain the judicial discipline, as otherwise similarly placed Lecturers have been treated differently by virtue of judgment contrary to what was decided earlier.

The review application is allowed, for the aforesaid."

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is no doubt that the impugned termination order dated 01.05.2017 was passed on the pretext that the writ petition of the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013 was dismissed by this Court on 24.04.2017, therefore, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and also the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Review Application No.56902 of 2017 in re: Writ Petition No.182 (S/B) of 2013, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned termination order dated 01.05.2017 is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is hereby quashed.

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner on the post of honorarium Lecturer (Philosophy) in Yuvraj Dutta Post Graduate College, Lakhimpur Kheri with all consequential benefits including the continuity in service.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 20.1.2021

Suresh/

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]