Nihal Ahmad vs State Of U.P.Through Secy.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2950 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4254 of 1999
 

 
Petitioner :- Nihal Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Farooq Ahmad
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C.S.C. for the respondent - State.

2. The petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Fisheries Inspector on 29.07.1965. He joined the post on 07.08.1965. He received a telegram on 19.10.19666 from the Commission that the post of Fisheries Inspector is not within the purview of the Commission. Respondent No.2 made a reference to the Government on 31.01.1979. The petitioner was regularized as Fisheries Inspector on 26.11.1979. He moved a representation on 07.08.1980 and reminder on 18.05.1987 to respondent No.2 for providing seniority. Respondent No.2 issued a tentative seniority list on 07.09.1993 of Fisheries Inspector. The petitioner moved a representation on 03.11.1993 against the tentative seniority list on 07.09.1993 and respondent No.2 passed an order on 06.08.1997 that the seniority list cannot be finalized. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2001, therefore, the purpose of filing the writ petition has become infructuous. He next submitted that at subsequent point of time, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.09.1999 and no parity of the case of Sardar Mukhtar Singh Dhillon Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal IV and others, Writ Petition No.2412 of 1980 decided on 18.05.1987 was granted to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.09.1999 that the same has been passed in an arbitrary manner.

4. He further submitted that case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision in the case of Sardar Mukhtar Singh Dhillon (Supra) and he should have been provided the benefit of the said judgment.

5. On the other hand, learned ACSC submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Sardar Mukhtar Singh Dhillon (Supra) does not relate and is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. On perusal of judgment in the case of Sardar Mukhtar Singh Dhillon (Supra), it is apparent on its face that case of the petitioner is fully covered under the said judgment, therefore, the impugned order is said to have been passed without application of mind and without taking into consideration the said judgment.

8. In view of above, the impugned order dated 30.09.1999 is hereby set aside.

9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

10. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Sardar Mukhtar Singh Dhillon (Supra) and to pass appropriate order in this regard with a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 28.1.2023

Adarsh K Singh