Allahabad High Court
Nafees Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7049 of 2022
Petitioner :- Nafees Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.M. Pandey Ist
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri I.M. Pandey Ist, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is working on the post of Area Lekhpal, Tehsil Bundi, district Lakhimpur Kheri and claims to be entitled to be promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector. It is stated that the departmental promotion committee has duly considered the name of the petitioner for promotion and the case of the petitioner has been placed in seal cover.
3. Petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for direction to the respondents to open sealed cover and promote him to the post of Revenue Inspector and give him adhoc or provisional promotion relying upon the case of Kaushal Kishore Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and provide all consequential benefits. He has further submitted that according to Government Order dated 28.05.1997, in Clause 10, it has been provided as under :-
Þ¼10½ p;u lfefr }kjk izFke ckj vkjksfir dkfeZd dks izksUufr ij fopkj djus ,oa eqgj cUn fyQkQs dh izfdz;k viuk;s tkus ds ckn ,d o"kZ dh vof/k chr tkus ij Hkh ¼bk vof/k esa ,slh vof/k vkxf.kr ugha dh tk;sxh ftlesa mipkjh dkfeZd }kjk vlg;ksx ds dkj.k tkap izfdz;k esa foyEc gqvk½ ;fn vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo"k; esa iz'kkukf/kdj.k dh [email protected]; dk;[email protected];kstu dk vfUre ifj.ke izkIr u gqvk gks] rks ,sls dkfeZdksa ds fo"k; esa] tks fuyfEcr ugha gSa] p;u lfefr }kjk fuEufyf[kr izfrcfU/kksa ds lkFk rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksfUufr ds lEcU/k esa fopkj fd;k tk;sxk%& &&&&&&ß
4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that his case for promotion shall be annually reviewed by the competent authority taking into account all the relevant factors such as whether decision with regard to promotion of the petitioner should be continued to be placed in sealed cover and should be given effect to.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgmnet of this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ-A No. 8151 of 2022 (decided on 26.05.2022), where this Court has held if the charges are not very serious and the criminal proceedings are pending for a very long length of time, then the delinquent employee should be granted adhoc promotion during pendency of the criminal proceedings. In the said case also it was noticed that the petitioner was not promoted for the period of two years and hence Court had interferred in the said case and also in that case the petitioner therein was charged under Section 420, 467 I.P.C.
6. With regard to the petitioner it is stated that first information report was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 109, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C.
7. After arguing the matter up to some length, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondents are directed to comply with Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 and take into account the judgment of this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Pandey (supra).
8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has objected to the said judgment submitting that Clause 10 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997, shall be applicable to the petitioner only after one year when the procedure has been adopted, but does not object to the above prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider provisions of Clause 10 of Government Order dated 28.05.1997, at the time when the matter for re-consideration of sealed cover of petitioner takes place. While considering the case of the petitioner the respondents shall also take into account the findings recorded by this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Pandey (supra) and also consider gravity of offences to which the petitioner has been charged and pass appropriate orders thereupon in accordance with law.
10. In the light of above, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
