Abul Hasan Ansari vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15678 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34880-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1033 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Abul Hasan Ansari
 
Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru Its M.D.Cum Chairman And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhaya Kumar Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauri,Neerav Chitravanshi
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') whereby the Claim Petition bearing No.788 of 2006 filed by the petitioner challenging the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P.C.') held on 28.08.1993 declaring the petitioner to be non-suited for promotion has been dismissed.

2. The sole reason assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is that the recommendation of the D.P.C. held on 28.08.1993 is neither a decision nor an order and accordingly in terms of the provisions contained in Section 4 of Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1976'), no such reference against the recommendation of the D.P.C. can be maintained.

3. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi appearing for U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. informs the Court that in the said D.P.C. held on 28.08.1993 case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer though was considered, however, he was not found suitable/fit to be promoted.

4. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi further informs that pursuant to the said D.P.C. held on 28.08.1993, the petitioner was not promoted. In our opinion, non-promotion based on the recommendation of the D.P.C. will amount to decision for not promoting the petitioner and accordingly, reference under Section 4 of the Act, 1976 would be maintainable. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order is thus erroneous.

5. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by Tribunal in Claim Petition No.788 of 2006 is hereby set aside. The Claim Petition No.788 of 2006 is restored to the board of the Tribunal which is directed to expedite the proceedings thereof and decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

6. It will be open to the parties to take all the pleas which may be available to them before the Tribunal including the plea relating to delay in instituting the claim petition.

Order Date :- 18.5.2023

Shubhankar