Allahabad High Court
Vijay vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief ... on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 240 of 2021
Appellant :- Vijay
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 82053 of 2021
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned as counsel for the side opposite has no objection to it. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order on Special Appeal
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment 28th January, 2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/non-appellant to claim salary since 21st January, 2003 to 5th July, 2006 has been rejected.
The writ petition was filed to claim salary for the period referred above and to decide the representation made by the petitioner/non-appellant in the year 2018. It was urged that the petitioner/non-appellant was appointed as Class-IV in January, 2003 and joined the services on 21.1.2003. He was not paid salary till 5th July, 2006 and accordingly representation to claim the salary was made prior to filing of the writ petition. A direction for consideration of the representation was prayed but declined by the learned Single Judge. Referring to the document, it is submitted that petitioner/non-appellant was in fact selected and appointed on Class IV post in January, 2003 yet was not paid salary till 5th July, 2006.
To analyse the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the record. We do not find an appointment order in January, 2003. The document referred by the petitioner/non-appellant only shows his selection on the post. He was thus called for the medical and for completion of all the formalities. The aforesaid has erroneously been taken to be an order of appointment. It becomes clear from the perusal of the detailed order passed by the respondents on 11th February, 2019 on a representation made by the petitioner/non-appellant. Para 3 of the said order is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"3- ;g gS fd bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad &PVR-62/2003 fnukad&28-02-2003 ds }kjk ftyk eftLVsªV tuin esjB dh viuk vfHker fn;s tkus gsrq izdj.k lUnfHkZr fd;k x;kA ftl ij ftykf/kdkjh tuin esjB ds i= la[;k&[email protected],[email protected] fnukad&03-03-2006 ds }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd 'kklukns'k la[;k&[email protected]&321&1947 fnukad7 viSzy 1958 esa tkjh funsZ'k ds vuqlkj dsoy nks"kfl} Bgjk;s tkus ij vPNk vkpj.k dk izek.k i= tkjh djus ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA tc rd mEEkhnokj uSfrd nqjkpkj dk nks"kh u Bgjk;k x;k gksA /kkjk&39 fo|qr vf/kfu;e ds vUrZxr gqbZ dk;Zokgh le>kSrs ds v/khu yksd vnkyr }kjk fufeZr fd;k x;k gS rFkk ek= 500 :i;s tqekZuk gqvk gSA bl dkj.k mDr dk;Zokgh uSfrd vkpj.k ds v/khu ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA pwafd ;kph dk p;u fnukad& 10-01-2003 dks Lohij ds in ij fd;k x;k FkkA ysfdu mDr vfHk;ksx iathd`r gksus ds dkj.k fu;qfDr vkns'k ikfjr ugh afd;k x;k FkkA ;kph }kjk prqZFk Js.kh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;s tkus gsrq iwoZ esa flfoy fel fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&[email protected] fot; cuke m0 iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds le{k ;ksftr dh x;h FkhA ftlesa ikfjr ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad&25-04-2008 ds vuqikyu esa bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k la[;k&;&[email protected] fnukad & 06-07-2005 ds }kjk ;kph dh fu;qfDr Lohij ds in ij dh x;h rFkk ;kph ds }kjk viuk vkxeu fnukad&11-07-2006 dks iqfyl ykbZu tuin esjB esa fd;k x;kA pwafd ;kph us Lohij prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij viuk vkxeu fnukad7 11-07-2006 dks iqfyl ykbZu tuin esjB esa djk;k x;k gS rFkk ftlds i'pkr ls ;kph dks fujUrj osru iznku fd;k tk jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kph dks fnukad 23-01-2003 ls 05-07-2006 rd dh vof/k dk osru ,oa HkRRks iznku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ fof?kd vkSfpR; izrhr ugh gksrk gSA"
The petitioner/non-appellant was in fact appointed by the order dated 6th July, 2005 and in pursuance to it joined the services on 11th July, 2006. He has been paid salary after his joining. The dispute remains for the earlier period. Counsel for the appellant could not show order of appointment of January, 2003 and any averment to show statement of fact narrated in para 3 of the order dated 11th February, 2019 to be incorrect. No pleading to this effect has been made despite the fact that representation made by the petitioner/non-appellant in the year 2018 was decided pursuant to the direction of the tribunal in the earlier petition. The aforesaid is only one aspect otherwise no justification could be given by the petitioner/non-appellant for sleeping over the matter for a period of twelve years before making a representation in the year 2018. The representation in the year 2008 was not to claim salary but to seek appointment.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/non-appellant has made a reference of a certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Meerut dated 5th August, 2004 showing working of the petitioner/non-appellant to be satisfactory.
We do not find aforesaid certificate to be authentic, as otherwise an order of appointment by the Superintendent of Police, Meerut does exist on record.
In light of the facts given above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and otherwise finds that the representation made by the petitioner/non-appellant was decided by the respondents by a speaking order dated 11th February, 2019. Thus, a further consideration of the representation under Rule 25 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 would be an exercise in futility. It is more so when no pleading in reference to para 3 of the order dated 11th February, 2019 has been made to contest the facts mentioned therein.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021
VMA
(Manish Kumar, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)
