Allahabad High Court
Ram Bilas vs State Of U.P Thru.Secy.Deptt. Of ... on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22382 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ram Bilas
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru.Secy.Deptt. Of Revenue Lko.And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Mishra,Shashi Saurabh Tiwari,Shesh Ram Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri Shashi Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Isha Mittal, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondents and perused the material brought on record.
2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Ram Bilas, has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.04.2016 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") dismissing the Claim Petition No.766 of 2012 which was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.04.2002 whereby his service was terminated and has sought a direction to provide him regular appointment on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal.
3. The Tribunal, dismissed the claim petition, on the ground that the petitioner had not been appointed after a selection process held in accordance with Rules and, therefore, he had no right to claim regularization.
4. The petitioner's appointment order dated 16.12.1990, states that he was appointed as a substitute on account of vacant post of Shri Ram Janam Singh; that his appointment was as a substitute only and it could have terminated any time without giving him any information.
5. Earlier the petitioner had filed a Claim Petition No.758 of 1993 before the Tribunal stating that his services had been dispensed with for want of vacancy. The Tribunal had allowed the claim petition and opposite parties were directed to consider his case for adjustment.
6. The petitioner submitted a representation, which was rejected by the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow by means of order dated 12.04.2002 stating that petitioner was not working against a regular vacancy and he had not been appointed in accordance with relevant service rules. It was further stated in the order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner that in an enquiry conducted the then Settlement Officer Consolidation was found guilty of making irregular appointment of the petitioner and a letter was written to the Government for initiating proceedings against him. The petitioner's irregular appointment could not be regularized and there is no provision in the Chak Bandi Lekhpal Service Rules for providing regular appointment to persons, who have served for short period.
7. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order, by filing Claim Petition No.766 of 2012, i.e. after 10 years since rejection of his representation. Besides taking the other pleas, the claim petition was resisted on the ground of being time barred also. However, the Tribunal did not decide the plea of claim petition being time barred, as the claim petition had admitted by means of order dated 23.05.2012.
8. The Tribunal held that the appointment order dated 18.05.1990 clearly states that the petitioner had been appointed as a substitute on the vacancy created by promotion by one Ram Janam Singh and the order categorically stated that the petitioner's appointment was as a substitute and it could be terminated at any time without giving any information. The aforesaid order does not indicate that the petitioner's appointment had been made after a selection held in accordance with Rules and no such evidence was produced by the petitioner. The petitioner had worked for a period of 18.05.1990 to 23.10.1991 as a substitute and thereafter his services were terminated for the reason that the post was not available.
9. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the post of a Chak Bandi Lekhpal was not vacant after 23.10.1991 as the petitioner's appointment had not been made in accordance with the Rules, the Tribunal held that his appointment, as a substitute, cannot be treated as made on a regular basis and it did not found any illegality in the order dated 23.05.2012 rejecting the petitioner's representation.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance upon a circular dated 16.09.1988 issued by the Consolidation Commissioner stating that any employee, who has worked for at least one year on any vacancy, should not be terminated by way of retrenchment and in case such a circumstances arises, the concerned Settlement Officer Consolidation will refer the matter to the Directorate. He has submitted that the Settlement Officer Consolidation had no authority to terminate the services of the petitioner by way of retrenchment.
11. In the present case, the petitioner had been appointed as a substitute and his service had been terminated on the ground that the vacancy was not available any more and such a termination would not fall within definition of the term "retrenchment". It has been stated in the order dated 12.04.2002 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner that petitioner had not been appointed in a regular manner and the Settlement Officer Consolidation had been found guilty for making his irregular appointment and the recommendation has been made to the Government for taking action against him. An appointment, which was not made in accordance with Rules, cannot be termed as a regular appointment and the petitioner had no right to claim regularization.
12. Although, the Tribunal had entertained the claim petition and decide the same on merits, as the claim petition has been admitted, we cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner's service was terminated on 23.10.1991, his representation was rejected on 12.04.2002 and he filed the claim petition challenging the order dated 12.04.2002 in the year 2012.
13. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitled him for grant of any relief by the Tribunal and also from claiming any relief by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merits in the instant writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 30.1.2023
Shubhankar
