Allahabad High Court
Chhatrapati Sahuji Mahraj ... vs Afzal Husain S/O Ikbal Husain S/S ... on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 902 of 2009
Appellant :- Chhatrapati Sahuji Mahraj Medical University Lucknow And Anr.
Respondent :- Afzal Husain S/O Ikbal Husain S/S 6964/2000
Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Chandra,Avinav N.Trivedi,Krishna Chandra,Shubham Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- R.C. Singh,Ratnesh Chandra,Raza Ali Khan
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
This is a Special Appeal arising out of judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 6964 (SS) of 2008.
On the last date, the matter was heard at length and the following order was passed on 31.03.2022.
"Heard.
Prima facie, the judgment of the learned Single Judge has rendered substantial justice as from the records it appears that Smt. Girja Tripathi was appointed in the year 1989 for fixed term as Sick Attendant, whereas, the petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post on daily wages on 20.12.1982. Both the posts were Class - IV. Services of the petitioner were terminated, but, then he approached the Industrial Tribunal which passed an award in his favour on 10.05.1989. Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition No. 1284 (S/S) of 1991 seeking regularization of his services wherein an order was passed on 30.08.1999 for regularizing the services of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date production of certified copy of the order.
Now, this order can not be read and understood as imposing any bar on considering the claim of the respondent herein for regularization from the date the services of Smt. Girja Tripathi were regularized. She was regularized in the year 1992, but, this was not done instead on 18.01.2000 a letter of fresh appointment was given to the respondent. In the meantime, the petitioner filed another writ petition seeking regular pay-scale wherein certain orders were passed, but, the matter went in Appeal and in the Appeal apart from the affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge Bench observation was also made to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization if there exist any such Rules.
Now, to say that when Smt. Girija Tripathi' services were regularized in 1992 there were no Rules, whereas, when the services of the respondent herein were regularized there were Rules which do not permit retrospective regularization, therefore, he can not be given parity with Smt. Girja Tripathi, does not appear to be sound at this stage.
The fact is that if the respondent was appointed prior to Smt. Girija Tripathi and there were no other factor which could form a rational basis for a differential treatment viz-a-viz Smt. Girja Tripathi, then, it is inexplicable as to why we should interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has merely given parity to the respondent with Smt. Girja Tripathi.
However, one opportunity is granted to the appellants to justify their stand that the respondent is not entitled to parity with Smt. Girja Tripathi.
List/ put up on 28.04.2022."
The Court had already disclosed its mind but considering the request of the learned counsel for the University granted him one more time to prepare and address the Court justifying the stand of the appellant that respondent herein is not entitled to claim parity with Smt. Girija Tripathi and today in pursuance thereof Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the University had only one point to add i.e. subsequent to his regularization on 18.01.2000, the respondent was given two promotions on the higher post which he accepted which according to him is a factor which needs to be considered. However, we fail to understand as to how these subsequent promotions on two higher posts from the posts on which the respondent's services were regularized on 18.01.2000 regarding which he has been litigating since 1991 can work as a hurdle so far as these proceedings are concerned. The promotions which have been given to the respondent would stand in any event irrespective of his claim for regularization on the lower post from an earlier date and this fact would have no adverse bearing on consideration of respondent's claim for regularization from the date of regularization of Smt. Girija Tripathi.
At this stage, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the private respondent informs this Court that in fact Smt. Girija Tripathi was initially appointed as Class-IV employee on ad-hoc basis but her services were regularized on Class-III post whereas the private respondent herein was initially appointed on Class-III post and his services subsequently regularized on 18.01.2000, instead of considering his request for regularization with effect from the date of regularization of Smt. Girija Tripathi on 01.02.1992 on the same post. Smt. Girija Tripathi was engaged on Class-III post in the year 1989 whereas the private respondent herein was engaged on the said post prior to her on 20.12.1982.
In view of this, for the reasons already given in our order dated 31.03.2022 which we reiterate and confirm, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the University as the judgment the learned Single Judge has done substantial justice between the parties.
Accordingly, we dismiss the special appeal.
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 28.4.2022
Asheesh
