Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Petitioners who are 11 in numbers were appointed as clerks in Flood Division Azamgarh from 1973 to 1978. They all retired long before. They are claiming benefit of Government Order dated 3.9.2001 copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition through which certain types of Government employees were held entitled to promotional/time pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 either from 1.3.2002 or when they complete 25 years of their service. Two of the employees of Government of U.P. filed writ petition no.36816 of 2004 Ram Chandra Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and others which was decided by this Court on 21.4.2008 and it was held that both the petitioners of the said writ petition were entitled to the benefit of the G.O. dated 3.9.2001, copy of the said judgment is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter present petitioners also filed writ petition in this Court being writ petition no.30870 of 2010 which was disposed of on 25.5.2010. The entire judgment copy of which is Annexure 10 to the writ petition is quoted below: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by the judgment rendered in writ petition No.36816 of 2004 decided on 21.04.2004. This writ petition is also being disposed of finally in view of the same terms and direction. No order passed as to costs." Thereafter petitioners filed representation before Executive Engineer Drainage Division Ballia which was rejected on 23.10.2010. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. In the main judgment on which petitioners are placing reliance (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) it is categorically mentioned in the first paragraph that petitioner no.1 was appointed on 11.1.1973 as Junior Clerk on 11.1.1973 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 1.9.1983; similarly petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Junior Clerk on 11.8.1972 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 27.6.1989.
2 was appointed as Junior Clerk on 11.8.1972 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 27.6.1989. Thereafter, in third para of the said judgment it is mentioned that in view of paragraph 2(a) of the G.O. dated 3.9.2001 those junior clerks who had put in 24 years of satisfactory service and had not been granted two promotions in the meanwhile would be entitled to the time pay scale on completion of their 24 years of satisfactory service. In the impugned order it is mentioned that all the petitioners were granted first promotion from the post of Junior Clerk to Senior Clerk on 1.9.1983, thereafter, they all were granted Second Promotion from the post of Senior to Senior Assistant on 1.9.1997, hence they were not entitled to the benefit of G.O. dated 3.9.2001. This statement of fact in the impugned order has not been denied in the writ petition. Accordingly, as petitioners had they already been granted two promotions hence they were not entitled to the benefit of G.O. dated 3.9.2001. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. _____________ HHHH 2013 (1) LBESR 569 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Sibghat Ullah Khan Union of India & Anr. Versus Mohd. Israr & Anr. C.M.W.P. No. 21296 of 1998 8-1-2013 Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 -- Section 25-G (a) Service laws—Termination of service—Temporary status—180 days not completed—Under Railways Rules status of temporary employee could not be conferred. [Para 4] (b) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 -- Section 25-G—Termination of ser vice—Juniors to respondent re tainer—Rule not absolute—Delay of ten years in raising the dispute fatal— Award of reinstatement quashed— Petition allowed. [Para 5] ____________ HHHH 2013 (1) LBESR 607 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Ashok Bhushan, Abhinava Upadhya Committee of Management, District Co operative Bank Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors.
[Para 5] ____________ HHHH 2013 (1) LBESR 607 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Ashok Bhushan, Abhinava Upadhya Committee of Management, District Co operative Bank Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors. C.M.W.P. No. 61325 of 2010 and 767 of 2011 18-1-2013 Service laws—Selection and ap pointment—Co-operative Bank—Ju risdiction of Institutional Service Board to proceed with the recruitment and make selection—Recruitment by service Board within its power—Se lection by Board held valid—Appoint ment whether to be made or not of selected candidates to be decided by the Bank—Appointment cannot be compelled—After amendment of Sec tion 29-A of the U.P. Co-operative So cieties Act, the Service Board has no authority to make recruitment, cannot be accepted—Thus, it cannot be said that the Bank has no power to con sider the question as to whether the appointment to the newly selected candidates be made or not looking to the existing man power and re sources—Held: Till the Bank takes a decision for making any new appoint ment, the Bank cannot be compelled to appoint 82 staff, who has been rec ommended by the Service Selection Board. [U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, Sections 29-A and 122] [Paras 34, 41 and 43] Judicial finding INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE —PROVISIONS SUBJECT TO ACT, EFFECT OF When any provision is made subject to the provisions of the Act, the enacting provision has to give way to the existing provisions. _____________ #EQ1#2013(1) LBESR 635#EQ2# #CT1#ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT#CT2# #CB1#.#CB2# #JJ1#Amitava Lala; ACJ., Ashok Srivastava#JJ2#2 #AP1#High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.#AP2# Versus #RS1#Devendra Kumar Pandey & Ors. #RS2# #CN1#Civil Misc. (Review) Petition No. 377107 of 2011, in Second Appeal No. 563 of 2008#CN2# #DT1#8-11-2012#DT2# #PC1#.#PC2# #SR1#Constitution of India -- Article 226#SR2# #CR1#.#CR2# Constitution of India -- Article 226— Confirmation and regularisation—Re view—Issue of dead cadre—Benefit of judgment already not extended— Prayer originally sought in Special appeal could not be supplemented by review. [Paras 3 and 4] #ADV1#Amit Sthalekar, Manish Goyal for the applicant C.L. Pandey, Sr. Advocate, Arvind Srivastava, Somesh Khare, R.C. Shukla, Krishnaji, Arvind Tripathi, I.R. Singh, Pankaj Pandey, for the respondents#ADV2# #HN1# Head Note #HN2# JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, ACJ.— This review petition has been filed against the judgement and order dated 20th September, 2011 passed in the above mentioned special appeal as well as another connected Special Appeal No. 1152 of 2007 (Barmeshwar Pandey and others Vs. Devendra Kumar Pandey and others).
Devendra Kumar Pandey and others). By the aforesaid judgement both the special appeals have been allowed and the direction has been given to take appropriate steps with regard to confirmation/regularisation and consequential reliefs of the employees concerned. Now, after hearing the parties and going through the records, we find that effect of the aforesaid judgement has been given and all the concerned employees have been confirmed/regularised and given consequential reliefs by way of promotion etc. vide office orders dated 10th July, 2012 in compliance of the judgement of this Court dated 20th September, 2011 and also the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 01st June, 2012 and 07th July, 2012. Therefore, it is clear that the judgement and order of this Court under review has already been complied with and given effect to. Hence, there is no need to pass any further order in this regard particularly when benefit of the judgement has already been given, which is confirmed by this Court. So far as other part of review regarding issue of ''dead cadre' is concerned, now it has been tried to be established before this Court on the part of the High Court that the cadre of Routine Grade Clerk (RGC) is not a dead cadre as the State Government vide its letter dated 04th January, 2008 has conveyed its inability to accept the recommendation of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 19th October, 2005. We are of the view that though all the documents were available with the High Court before the pronouncement of the judgement in the special appeals on 20th September, 2011 but were never placed before the Court either at the time of hearing or before the delivery of judgement and an impression was given that the effect has been given to the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 19th October, 2005 and the cadre of RGC has been declared as dead cadre. The special appeal was filed by the High Court itself against the order of the Single Judge for confirmation/regularisation of the employees concerned and it is also on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the High Court that the direction was given for confirmation/regularisation and other consequential reliefs, which has now been complied with.
The special appeal was filed by the High Court itself against the order of the Single Judge for confirmation/regularisation of the employees concerned and it is also on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the High Court that the direction was given for confirmation/regularisation and other consequential reliefs, which has now been complied with. Therefore, now at this stage the High Court cannot be permitted to turn around and supplement the prayer originally sought in the special appeal, by way of this review petition. More so, we find that the concerned employees, who have been given benefit of the judgement, were appointed and confirmed as per the relevant Rules much prior to recommendation of the Chief Justice dated 19th October, 2005. Therefore, whether the recommendation of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is accepted by the Government or not, it does not affect the claim and right of the concerned employees. So far as the issue of dead cadre is concerned, it is upon the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to take a decision in the administrative side by applying Article 229 of the Constitution of India and also the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 whether the order can be passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice alone or the Government will be consulted if financial implication is there. In view of the above, instead of dismissing the review petition, it is treated to be disposed of, however, without imposing any cost. _____________