Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ... on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5521 of 2014
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshuman,Akash Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
Present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby to directing the opposite parties/opposite party no.3 to treat the service of the petitioner as the Lekhpal to be permanent/regular from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 07.01.1989, made under the Dying in Harness Rules, and provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner from the said date."
It is stated that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 07.01.1989 on the post of Lekhpal under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short "Rules of 1974"). As per appointment order, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lekhpal was Ad-hoc/Temporary (???????).
It is further stated that considering the situation of the family the petitioner joined on the post of Lekhpal on 21.01.1989 in terms of order of appointment dated 07.01.1989. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 16.09.2008 w.e.f. 31.07.2006 i.e. the date of completion of training as indicated in Lekhpals Service (Amendment) Rules, 2006 (in short "Rules of 2006") though the same were not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the same are not retrospective in nature. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the appointment under Rules of 1974 would always be permanent and not temporary one. In other words, the appointment under Rules of 1974 has to be treated as permanent appointment. In regard to status of a person appointed under the Rules of 1974, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 12.02.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39127 of 1994 (Ravi Karan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others). Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4228 of 2003 (Akhtar Husain vs. S.D.M. Saidpur, Ghazipur and Others) and the judgment dated 05.07.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12112 of 2000 (Chandan Kumar vs. Registrar Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Another). Prayer is to allow the petition for the relief sought.
Opposing the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner completed his training on 31.07.2006, as per Rules of 2006, as such, the petitioner was regularized on the post of Lekhpal w.e.f. 31.07.2006 which is justified and as such, no interference is required in the matter. It is also stated that as per U.P. Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 a person who has passed the Lekhpal School examination can be appointed on the post of Lekhpal, however, without having requisite eligibility/qualification the appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Lekhpal under Rules of 1974 vide order dated 07.01.1989, as such, training was required, which he completed on 31.07.2006. He could not dispute the fact that the amendments in the Rules of 2006 are not retrospective in nature, however, he says as per third proviso to Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006, an untrained Lekhpal who's working period on the post of Lekhpal was more than ten years was required to complete the special training of three months at the Lekhpal Training School and the said proviso further says that after completion of training, the service of concerned would be regularized and his seniority would be fixed from the date of regularization. Prayer is to reject the claim of the petitioner.
Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the facts of the present case as also the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to treat the petitioner as permanent employee w.e.f. 21.01.1989 on the post of Lekhpal for all the service benefits except the service benefits, which are based upon the seniority. It is in view of the fact that at time of appointment on the post of Lekhpal, the petitioner was not passed the Lekhpal School Examination, as required under Rules 6 & 7 of Rules of 1958 and he passed the same on 31.07.2006 as per Rules of 2006 and a conjoint reading of Rule 6, 7 & 17 of Rules of 1958 would show that for fixation of seniority, passing of Patwari or Lekhpal School Examination is required.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022/Vinay/-
