Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2413 (ALL)

Mangal Prasad Yadav v. State of U. P. and another

2010-08-09

SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2010
Shabihul Hasnain, J.- Inadvertently, while deciding the writ petition finally on 3.8.2010, in the operative part of the judgment, 'writ petition is, thus, allowed' could not be transcribed. The order has been corrected as under:- Heard Sri R.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel. The petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal in the year 1972. The petitioner was given officiating charge on the post of Land Record Inspector, which was later on known as Land Revenue Inspector on 30.10.1990. He was reverted to his substantive post in the year 1991 as one regularly selected Land Revenue Inspector was transferred to the place where the petitioner was given officiating promotion. The petitioner filed the writ petition No. 4045 (SS) 1991 in July, 1991, in which interim order was passed on 22.7.1991. In pursuance of the interim order, the petitioner was allowed to function and discharge the duties on the post of Land Records Inspector and he was also paid salary of the said post. The writ petition was finally allowed quashing the impugned order of reversion. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003. Till his retirement, he was paid the salary of Land Record Inspector as per interim order issued by this Court. 2. The State filed the special appeal No. 271 of 2007 (SB), in this matter. The special appeal was dismissed on 16.4.2009 by a Division Bench of this Court, copy of which has been placed before us and it is taken on record. 3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the post retiral benefits have been calculated and paid to the petitioner treating him to be retired from the substantive post of Lekhpal and this order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. In view of the facts stated above, following points are clear:- (1) That the interim order was passed staying the reversion of the petitioner; (2) The petitioner continued to work and paid salary of the post of Land Revenue Inspector on the strength of the interim order till his date of superannuation; (3) The writ petition was finally allowed; (4) The special appeal filed by the State against final order in the writ petition, has been dismissed; 5. In the above situation, there cannot be two opinions that the petitioner has to be treated by the opposite parties, to have retired working on the post of Land Revenue Inspector till he attained the age of superannuation. 6. Further more, while the stay order was in operation, the petitioner was transferred from Qaiserganj to Bhinga, treating the petitioner as Lekhpal. The petitioner has argued that this could not have been done as the interim order was operating. By way of this order, an attempt was made to circumvent the order of the Court. What could not have been done directly, was tried to be done indirectly and when the reversion could not be affected, the transfer was resorted to. The opposite parties were completely barred from doing so hence the transfer order was bad. The opposite parties have treated the absence of the petitioner of that period as a gap in service. This also cannot be done. A contempt petition was already filed in this matter. After hearing the petitioner, the Court comes to the definite conclusion that this should not be allowed to stand in the way of determination of the length of services of the petitioner and this gap should be treated as continuance in service. 7. Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite parties that the post retiral dues of the petitioner shall be calculated, treating the petitioner to be working on the post of Land Revenue Inspector till the date he attained the age of superannuation. Since the petitioner has retired long back, and is senior citizen of the Country, naturally the matter becomes urgent. The necessary calculation for the payment of post retiral dues, as directed above, shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite parties. 8. Writ petition is, thus, allowed. Petition allowed.