Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1319 (ALL)

Mahendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2005-07-23

RAKESH SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Sharma, J. Heard Sri Anurag Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Under challenge is an order issued on 28.5.1999, by the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow, dismissing the representation of the Petitioner through which he had sought re-employment in the service as Class IV post. 3. Sri Anurag Verma learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage worker on 17.9.1986 by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur. The Petitioner had worked to the entire satisfaction of the superiors. He was disengaged from service on 12.1.1987. The Petitioner was again appointed as daily wage paid worker on 6.6.1989 by the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow. A formal appointment order was issued in favour of the Petitioner on 6.6.1989, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Petitioner was transferred to work at the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur where he joined on 9.6.1989. The Petitioner was disengaged again on 9th September, 1989 without any rhyme or reason. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has alleged that one Sri Balwant Singh, who was resident of native village of the then Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow was engaged in place of the Petitioner on 15.11.1989. In fact, the Petitioner was disengaged from service to make room for Sri Balwant Singh. Sri Balwant Singh was also appointed as Class IV employee just as the Petitioner and was posted to work at the office of Additional Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur. He is still in service and has been regularized in service. The Petitioner, who was an appointee of September, 1986 as such should not have been thrown out of employment to accommodate Sri Balwant Singh, who was much junior to him. 5. Similarly one Sri Hari Nath Singh, who was also relative of the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow was appointed in the year 1989 on Class IV post by the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow. 6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had submitted several representations to the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. The Petitioner has brought to the notice of the superior authority that he is a B. Com. graduate, fully qualified, fit and suitable for a class IV post or a class III post in the department. 6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had submitted several representations to the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. The Petitioner has brought to the notice of the superior authority that he is a B. Com. graduate, fully qualified, fit and suitable for a class IV post or a class III post in the department. During the pendency of representations submitted by the Petitioner, the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow and the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur continued to make appointments of other persons like Nandlal, Salman, Jai Prakash, Raj Narain Yadav and Daya Shanker in the aforementioned office. The services of Jai Prakash, Raj Narain and Daya Shanker were terminated. Sri Jai Prakash and Raj Narain had filed Writ Petition No. 8384 (S/S) of 1993 and this Court passed an interim order in their favour on 21.5.1993. Similarly one Sri Daya Shanker had also filed Writ Petition No. 4590 (S/S) of 1993 and obtain an interim order on 10.6.1993. These persons were reinstated in service while the Petitioner's case was not considered for reinstatement in the service. All the aforementioned persons, who were engaged immediately after termination of service of the Petitioner, were favorites of the authorities or related to the concerned Regional Transport Officer and the Additional Regional Transport Officer. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion several vacancies were available in the department. 7. Being aggrieved by this action, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6217 of 1996 (S/S), Mahendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. in which this Court had passed an interim order on 30.9.1996. Thereafter another writ petition was filed by the Petitioner bearing Writ Petition No. 3496 (S/S) of 1998 which was disposed of on 13.8.1998, directing the opposite parties to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the Petitioner. When the order passed by this Court was not complied with, the Petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition No. 591 (C) of 1999 in which notices were issued to the contended parties. The opposite parties got annoyed due to filing of these writ petitions and the contempt petition filed by the Petitioner. Petitioner's representation was rejected by a non-speaking and non reasoned order on 28.5.1999. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Regional Transport Authority has acted with predetermined mind and has pre-judged issues and has rejected the representation of the Petitioner. 8. Petitioner's representation was rejected by a non-speaking and non reasoned order on 28.5.1999. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Regional Transport Authority has acted with predetermined mind and has pre-judged issues and has rejected the representation of the Petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has laid much stress on the fact that persons similarly placed and persons appointed subsequent to the appointment of the Petitioner in September, 1986, have been allowed to continue in service. The persons, namely, Raj Narain, Jai Prakash and Daya Shanker, who are junior to the Petitioner have been allowed to continue in service. The only defence taken in the counter-affidavit is that they were reinstated in compliance of the orders passed by the Court. The opposite parties have admitted that they had appointed Balwant Singh on 15.11.1989 and he is still continuing in the services as a regular employee. There is no denial of the fact that the opposite parties have engaged several persons like Nandlal, Salman, Jai Prakash, Raj Narain Yadav and Daya Shanker which shows that the work and post were available and there were no administrative exigencies to throw the Petitioner out of employment. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in K.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1046 and Om Prakash Goel Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla and another, AIR 1991 SC 1490 , in support of his submission. The authorities were prejudiced and they had acted mala fidely and not reinstating the Petitioner while large number of persons were engaged immediately after terminating the services of the Petitioner. 9. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the Petitioner was merely a daily wager and had worked in the department on a class IV post since 17th September, 1986 to 12th January, 1987 and from 9th June, 1989 to 9th September, 1989 to meet out day to day exigencies of the work. Since no work was available in the department, the competent authority had terminated the services of the Petitioner on 9.9.1989. The opposite parties have submitted that the Petitioner was not engaged or appointed on a substantive post and he has no right to hold the post. The relevant regularization rules are not applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Since no work was available in the department, the competent authority had terminated the services of the Petitioner on 9.9.1989. The opposite parties have submitted that the Petitioner was not engaged or appointed on a substantive post and he has no right to hold the post. The relevant regularization rules are not applicable in the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner could not claim his continuance in the service and regularization as a matter of right. Several judgments have been cited to demonstrate that a daily wager has no right to hold the post. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is admitted to the opposite parties that after termination of service of the Petitioner on 9.9.1989, they had engaged Sri Balwant Singh. It is evident from para 30 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as follows: That the contents of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition are irrelevant as stated; however, it is submitted that Sri Balwant Singh, who temporarily engaged in the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur. 12. So far as engagement of Sri Jai Prakash, Raj Narain and Daya Shanker are concerned, the opposite parties have admitted this fact in para 36 of the counter-affidavit which is as follows: That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the writ petition, it is submitted that Sri Jai Prakash, Sri Raj Narain and Sri Daya Shanker have been engaged in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on the available post vide order dated 12.7.1993 by the then Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow. 13. It is noteworthy that the opposite parties have avoided giving reply to the specific pleadings of the Petitioner that the authority had engaged Sri Hari Nath Singh a relative of the Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow, Salman and Nand Lal also in addition to Sri Jai Prakash, Raj Narain and Daya Shanker. In view of these admitted facts an inference can be drawn that work and post was available to accommodate the Petitioner and there were no administrative exigencies to throw the Petitioner out of employment. In view of these admitted facts an inference can be drawn that work and post was available to accommodate the Petitioner and there were no administrative exigencies to throw the Petitioner out of employment. The opposite parties have arbitrarily and mala fidely terminated the services of the Petitioner and did not reinstate him at a time when Sri Balwant Singh, Salman, Nandlal, Jai Prakash, Raj Narain Yadav and Daya Shanker were appointed or reinstated in service. The action is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The judgments cited by Sri Anurag Verma learned Counsel for the Petitioner are applicable in the present set of circumstances. The Petitioner has not been dealt with justly and fairly and has been purposefully discriminated in the matter of employment. The averments made in the writ petition appears to the effect that because of filing of writ petitions and a contempt petition, the authorities deliberately kept him out of employment has force. The Petitioner was not reinstated like Jai Prakash, Raj Narain Yadav and Daya Shanker. The Regional Transport Officer has not complied with the spirit of the order passed by this Court. Representations of the Petitioner have been rejected without application of mind and appreciating the submissions made by the Petitioner. The Regional Transport Officer has not dealt with the points raised in the representations made by the Petitioner, copies of which have been annexed with the writ petition. The Regional Transport Officer has taken into account the current status of vacancies of class IV posts in the office of Regional Transport Office Lucknow. He ought to have taken into account the vacancies as were existing in the year 1989 and thereafter. The Petitioner has successfully proved before this Court that several vacancies were available and some were filled in by Balwant Singh, Salman, Nandlal, Jai Prakash, Raj Narain Yadav and Daya Shanker. The Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow has not gone through the material on record and has passed an order with a predetermined mind and dismissed the representation of the Petitioner mechanically. The Transport Commissioner had also issued circular on 23.8.1997 to fill up class IV vacancies. 14. The Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow has not gone through the material on record and has passed an order with a predetermined mind and dismissed the representation of the Petitioner mechanically. The Transport Commissioner had also issued circular on 23.8.1997 to fill up class IV vacancies. 14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that one class IV post is still lying vacant in the office of Additional Transport Office, Sitapur as one Sri Manuman Prasad Rastogi, Daftari holding class IV Group D post was transferred from Sitapur to Kannouj on 26.2.2004. This post in the office of Additional Regional Transport Officer, Sitapur is vacant and the Petitioner can still be accommodated and reinstated on the said post. 15. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued, directing the opposite parties to reinstate the Petitioner forthwith on the Class IV post in the office of Regional Transport Office, Lucknow/or in Additional Transport Officer, Sitapur where a post of Daftari is vacant since 26.2.2004 due to transfer of Manuman Prasad Rastogi from Sitapur to Kannouj. This order shall be complied with within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If the Petitioner is not reinstated in compliance of the Court's order, no appointment's on class IV post shall be made in the office of Regional Transport Office, Lucknow and the Additional Regional Transport Office, Sitapur. 16. This Court has taken note in several cases that the appellate authorities are not discharging their functions properly. They must deal with the petty grievances of Government servants. If the appellate authorities exercise their appellate functions properly and deal with such matters fairly and in proper manner in accordance with law, the grievances of Government servants can be redressed at the appellate stage or at the administrative level. Due to indifferent attitude of the authorities and non performing mentality of the administrative authorities, the burden of the Courts is increasing day by day. For petty matters like payment of salary claims, crossing of efficiency bar, adverse entries, minor penalties, post retiral benefits, the employees have to approach Service Tribunal and High Court. Similarly, the appellate authorities who are responsible to look into such grievances as relating to disposal of representations filed against the adverse entries and censure entries are not dealing with such matters properly. The superior administrative authorities delay the disposal of the representations. Similarly, the appellate authorities who are responsible to look into such grievances as relating to disposal of representations filed against the adverse entries and censure entries are not dealing with such matters properly. The superior administrative authorities delay the disposal of the representations. In some cases, the representations are disposed of in a mechanical manner by writing three or four lines using telegraphic language. In some cases the authorities act with a pre-determined mind and do not act fairly. They avoid to take a proper legal and just decision, fearing that if a decision is taken in favour of Government servant, motives may be imputed against them. This is not proper. This has lead to piling up of service matters in this Court. There is an enormous burden of litigation on the Courts. One reason for this is inaction and lethargy on the part of the administrative authorities in dealing with simple administrative matters. The aggrieved employee has to rush to the portals of this Court. 17. It must also be realized that there has been a litigation explosion in our country in recent times. The dockets of all courts are overflowing. An alternative dispute redressal mechanism is urgently required (like the mediation system in America), since the load is simply too heavy for the judiciary to carry alone. In the circumstances, it is expected of the appellate authorities, dealing with service and other matters and superior authorities of administration to redress the petty grievances of the Government servant at their own level and not to leave them unheard. This would certainly save the precious time of the Courts and avoid wastage of public money in pursing litigation in the Courts. 18. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for information and necessary action.