Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21996 of 2020
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh,Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2020 and claiming salary for the Class IV post with effect from 27.01.2005 till 22.03.2010.
Heard.
It is said that on 12.1.2005 the D.I.O.S. Lucknow granted permission to the opposite party-Educational Institution for filling up one Class IV post under the O.B.C. category and another under the Scheduled Caste category. It is further said that in pursuance to the same an advertisement was issued on 13 January, 2005. Thereafter the petitioner was issued an appointment letter by opposite party no. 5 on 27.01.2005. It is said that the petitioner joined on the Class IV post under the O.B.C. category on 28.01.2005. The appointment letter dated 27.01.2005 a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition categorically mentioned that salary would be payable only after approval of the appointment by the D.I.O.S.-2 Lucknow. No such approval was granted. Petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4477 (SS) of 2006 which was disposed off on 23.05.2006 with a direction to the D.I.O.S. to take a decision with regard to approval of petitioner's appointment within a period of six weeks. No such decision was taken. The petitioner did not file any contempt petition as stated by his counsel. Ultimately on 23.03.2010 petitioner's appointment was approved from the date of issuance of the said order. Being aggrieved by the belated approval petitioner approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 5361 (SS) of 2014 which was dismissed on the ground of laches on 23.09.2014 in the following terms :
"The petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the order dated 23.3.2010 whereby approval has been granted to the petitioner on Class-IV post in the Yasodha Rastogi Girls Intermediate College from 23.3.2010.
This writ petition filed in the year 2014 is grossly barred by laches.
According to Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter relates to salary, which is a recurring cause of action and, therefore, the petition would not be barred by laches.
In my opinion, the matter relates to the approval, which has been granted by the D.I.O.S. Para-10 of the writ petition itself indicates that approval has been granted on 23.3.2010 and according to the petitioner it should have been granted from the date of appointment. This was the matter, which was in the knowledge of the petitioner on 23.3.2010 when the order was passed.
Sri Prashant Jaiswal has raised an objection that State Government has not been made a party in the writ petition. Since the petition is being dismissed, the question of considering non joinder of necessary party does not arise.
The writ petition is grossly barred by laches and is accordingly dismissed."
Judgment of the Writ Court was never challenged in appeal, therefore, the matter attained finality, however, it seems that thereafter the petitioner kept approaching the D.I.O.S. whereupon the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 has been passed, however, on a perusal thereof this Court finds that this order does not adjudicate the matter on merits, but only states that the issue has already been decided by the D.I.O.S. on 23.03.2010, wherein his appointment has been approved from the date of issuance of the said order i.e. 23.03.2010 and the petitioner is being paid salary regularly from the said date, meaning thereby no fresh decision has been taken on merits, by the order dated 04.03.2020. Order further goes on to state that the petitioner is very well aware about the aforesaid fact.
The order dated 23.03.2010 has already attained finality and the writ petition of the petitioner challenging the same has already been dismissed way back on 13.09.2014 as referred hereinabove, therefore, this petition for the same issue is not maintainable and the order dated 04.03.2020 does not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioner to approach this court for the reasons aforesaid. For these reasons this petition is dismissed.
(Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 16.3.2021
A.Nigam
