Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Housing ... on 3 January, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:565
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16927 of 2020
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Upadhyay
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Andors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surya Kant Singh
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Surya Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed in 1989 on the post of Assistant Engineer in Ghaziabad Development Authority on daily wage basis. After rendering substantial period of service on the post of Assistant Engineer, petitioner was considered for regularisation and his case was duly considered and instead of regularising services of petitioner, the respondents issued appointment letter dated 11.05.2000 and in the appointment letter it has been stated that the Screening Committee was constituted with regard to Assistant Engineers who have been working on Daily Wage basis and 21 such Assistant Engineers have been screened and appointment letter has been issued including the petitioner. In the appointment letter it has been stated that petitioner's services will be on adhoc basis. Subsequently, the petitioner was duly considered and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 04.07.2019. In the mean while petitioner was considered for grant of Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as "the ACP") on completion of 10 years of service and by means of order dated 13.05.2010, petitioner became eligible for grant of first ACP on 13.05.2010 considering his date of appointment to be May, 2000, in pursuance to petitioner's fresh appointment letter dated 11.05.2000.
3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by means of letter dated 19.07.2003, it was stated that by means of order dated 11.05.2000, ad-hoc appointment letter was issued to the Assistant Engineers (Civil) after due consideration of a Selection Committee which had given its recommendation for regularisation of services of the petitioner and it is clearly evident from the said letter that petitioner's services stood regularised from 11.05.2000 itself. Subsequently, when the matter for grant of second ACP came, the respondents have taken due date of regularisation of petitioner to be 19.07.2003, rather than initial date of appointment i.e. 11.05.2000. Though the second ACP to which the petitioner was eligible from 2016 onwards, was given to him. Though in the counter affidavit it has been stated that it has been granted to the petitioner with effect from 2019, considering his date of regular service i.e. 19.07.2003.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances , the dispute before this Court is as to whether regular services of petitioner should be counted from the date of initial appointment i.e. 11.05.2000 or from the date of issuance of letter dated 19.07.2003. The petitioner initially joined his services as Assistant Engineer in 1989 on daily wage basis and subsequently his case for regularisation was duly considered by the respondents and by means of order dated 11.05.2000, after selection of petitioner by a Screening Committee, fresh appointment letter on adhoc basis in the pay scale of 8000 - 275 - 30,000 , was issued to the petitioner. The said order of regularisation was issued pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 399, where following directions were issued by the Apex Court :-
"3. We are told under Uttar Pradesh Rules recruitment on regular basis is to be through Public Service Commission. We direct the Authority to take steps through the State of Uttar Pradesh to obtain regularisation of the petitioners as far as possible within nine months from now so that by the end of the year the process of regularisation may, as far as practicable be completed.
4. The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented before us and counsel appearing for it has been put to notice of the order. At the time of regularisation the period spent on duty shall be adjusted against the age prescription and the Public Service Commission would take into account the past service to consider if any weightage should be given and performance under the Authority may be taken into account for such purpose.
5. Mr. Rana has assured us and we believe it shall be worked out in terms of our order that vacancies arising hereafter shall be given to the petitioners already who are in employment. Steps for regularisation may be taken by the authorities within three months from now. The Vice-Chairman of the Authority is authorised to comply with our order and make such directions as may be necessary to implement it. At the request of Mr. Rana the process which is contemplated by our order may be completed from May 1, 1991 giving benefit of the order from March 1, 1991."
5. It is noticed that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had directed the State of U.P. to take steps for regularisation of petitioner within the period of nine months and it is in pursuance to the directions of the Apex Court that order dated 11.05.2000 was passed. There was no direction by the Apex Court to appoint petitioner and other similarly situated persons on ad-hoc basis, but contrary to the directions of the Apex Court, the petitioner was infact appointed on ad-hoc basis.
6. The respondents duly recognized error in the order of appointment, which was sought to be rectified on 19.07.2003 in terms of the fact that petitioner was regularly appointed on 11.05.2000 and concurrent reading of order dated 11.05.2000 as well as order dated 19.07.2003, would leave no confusion that services of petitioner were regularised with effect from 11.05.2000, when the order was passed in pursuance to the directions of the Apex Court. The first ACP was also granted to the petitioner in 2010, after completion of ten years of satisfactory service treating his regular appointment from 11.05.2000.Again there is no dispute that the State was also of the view that regular appointment of petitioner was with effect from 2000 rather then 19.07.2003.
7. Grievance of petitioner had arisen on the present case on account of the fact that certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, due to which he was not considered for grant of second ACP and after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in 2018, despite request made by the petitioner, the respondents did not consider his case to issue any letter for grant of second ACP and hence present writ petition has been filed.
8. Present writ petition has been opposed by the State stating that as date for grant of second ACP to petitioner would be from 2003 onwards and in this regard petitioner would be entitled for grant of second ACP on completion of 16 years of service on 2019 rather then 2016.
9. Considering the rival contentions it is noticed that, it is in pursuance to the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Krishna and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (supra) services of petitioner were regularised resulting in issuance of fresh order of appointment on 11.05.2000. There is no reason indicated in the counter affidavit as to why "ad-hoc" word was inserted in the appointment letter, the said error was duly rectified by the State Government when they passed order dated 19.07.2003, where they clearly stated that petitioner shall be regularly appointed from 11.05.2000.
10. It is further noticed that the petitioner is working in the Kanpur Development Authority, and the aspect pertaining to grant of second ACP was recommended to the State Government, where also date of regular appointment of petitioner has been shown to be 11.05.2000, by the respondents themselves, which would be an admission on their part with regard to the date of regularisation of the services of the petitioner.
11. In the light of above, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner stood regularly appointed on 11.05.2000 and was entitled to all the service benefit from the date of his regular appointment itself. Surprisingly, the State granted first ACP to the petitioner considering his date of initial appointment to be 11.05.2000.
12. In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that second ACP would be admissible to the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service i.e. from 11.05.2000 itself and not from 2003, as stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Accordingly, this Court finds force in the contention raised by the petitioner, for the reasons stated herein above.
13. The writ petition stands allowed.
14. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of second ACP considering his date of regularisation/regular appointment to be 11.05.2000. Let necessary orders in this regard be passed expeditiously, say within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority.
15. In case order is not passed within the aforesaid prescribed period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the delayed payment.
Order Date :- 3.1.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
