Allahabad High Court
Dharam Pal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53103
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5959 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dharam Pal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Delelopment Lko And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla,Alok Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 6.
3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16.08.2016, 17,11.2023, 06.02.2024, 06.04.2024 and 29.05.2024 whereby petitioners have been reverted and their salary has been equated with that of one Ms. Meena Srivastava.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that earlier petitioners were granted accelerated promotion in terms of Rule 8A of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 which was struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. versus Rajesh Kumar and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1, Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2012 whereby provisions of Section 3 (7) of the U.P. Government Servant (Reservation to SC/ST & other Backward Class) Act, 1994 as well as the aforesaid rule of the Rules of 2007 were declared ultra vires. It is submitted that subsequently the aforesaid judgment was modified by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.11.2015 in which liberty has been granted to such employees who had grievance against such reversion. In the case of State Government employees, it was the Principal Secretary/Head of the Department and in the case of corporations, the Managing Director, competent authority or the appointing authority who were the authorities required to consider such representations.
5. It is submitted that since in the present case, the impugned order has been passed by the appointing authority being the Finance Director of the Corporation, an opportunity of preferring representation in terms of directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been lost.
6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties on the basis of submissions submits upon instructions that petitioners' appointing authority is in fact the Finance Director of the Corporation who has passed the impugned order after consideration upon the aspects concerned regarding applicability of aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra).
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident and admitted that impugned orders have been passed in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra). The impugned orders have been passed by the appointing authority being the Finance Director of the Corporation. However, it is also evident that since the impugned orders have been passed by the appointing authority itself, an opportunity for filing a representation as provided in directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 13.10.2015 and 24.11.2015 has been lost.
8. In view of aforesaid and particularly in view of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.11.2015, an opportunity is granted to petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation within a period of one week from today, which if preferred shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of such representation. It is provided that till decision on petitioners' representation, no recovery or adjustment shall be made from salary of petitioners.
9. In view thereof, petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.8.2024
Satish
