Allahabad High Court
Kamal Joshi vs State Of U.P.Through Principal ... on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8447 of 2017
Petitioner :- Kamal Joshi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Principal Secretary Transport And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobha Amarnath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shobha A. Tiwari for the petitioner as well as Standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had applied for the post of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 3.7.1999 and appeared in the examination conducted by Public Service Commission and was duly selected in written examination and also faced interview. It is during the conduct of the said recruitment process that the State of Uttar Pradesh was divided and new State of Uttarakhand was created under Reorganization Act, 2000. The petitioner was asked to give preference. It is stated that the petitioner opted for Uttarakhand. Petitioner was duly given appointment letter and select list was declared on 6.3.2002. The petitioner was not allowed to join in Uttarakhand despite repeated representations. In the said circumstances he made a request for being given appointment in Uttar Pradesh. State of U.P. did not respond to the repeated requests of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition before this Court being writ petition No.1290 (S/S) of 2004 which was decided by means of judgment and order dated 10.3.2004 where the petition was disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to decided representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is stated that the said representation was also rejected by the State of U.P. on 27.5.2004 which was again assailed by the petitioner before this Court in writ petition No.3500 (S/S) of 2004 which was decided by means of the judgment and order dated 26.5.2009 where this Court allowed the claim of the petitioner and accordingly the opposite parties were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical). It is only in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 26.5.2009 that the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and he was allowed to join on 4.1.2010 and since then the petitioner is working in the State of U.P. and presently he is working on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer in Lucknow.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his services are required to be considered with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 5th March, 2002 and it is on account of the fault of the State of Uttarakhand who had firstly not allowed to join the petitioner and subsequently State of U.P. did not permit the petitioner to join. It is stated that all these aspects are pending consideration before the competent authority but no decision has been taken. It is stated that in case the services of the petitioner are to be counted with effect from the date of his initial appointment the petitioner would be availing the benefit of pension having been appointed prior to 1.5.2005.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner raised by means of the representation dated 30.9.2009, contained in Annexure No.7, expeditiously.
5. Learned Standing counsel does not object to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner.
6. In light of the above, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before opposite party No.1 within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is made, opposite party No.1 shall pass a speaking and reasoned order thereon, expeditiously say within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
