Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-01-02

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Accountant in the year 1989 in the office of Regional Transport Office at Allahabad and has been working continuously since then. By a Government Notification dated 31st August, 1989, the cadre of Assistant Accountant and Accountant was restructured. As a result of this restructuring, 80% of the combined strength of the Assistant Accountant and Accountant were re-designated as Accountant in the pay scale of 1400-2600 with effect from 1st January, 1986 and remaining 20% were retained as an Assistant Accountant. By an order of the Transport Commissioner dated 12th September, 1995, the petitioner was re-designated as an Accountant in the pay scale of 1400-2600. 2. U.P. Transport Taxation (Subordinate) Services Rules, 1980 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1980) provides for appointment on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. Under Rule 5(iii) of the aforesaid Rules, 50% of the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent is required to be filled up by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The said Rule further provides that amongst the 50% seats to be filled by promotion, 15% are required to be filled by Section Officers and Noter Drafters 7% by the stenos from the office of Transport Commissioner and 14% from Head Clerks and Head Clerks-cum-Accountants and 14% by Stenographers from the regional office. The Rule further provide that the candidate should be in service for 5 years. 3. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner having completed five years of service as an Accountant became eligible for being promoted on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. The writ petition indicates that the petitioner made several representations starting from 2001 onwards for consideration of his claim for being promoted on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. When the petitioner’s claim fell on deaf ears, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 42 of 2011 which was disposed of by an order dated 5.1.2011 directing the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the authority concerned which would be decided by a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondents passed an order dated 28th March, 2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present writ petition. 4. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondents passed an order dated 28th March, 2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The impugned order indicates that the respondents have relied upon a Government Order dated 11th August, 1983 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The respondent contend that in view of the Government Order dated 11th August, 1983, the Account Cadre has been separated from the clerical cadre and consequently, the petitioner cannot be promoted from this cadre, coupled with the fact that new Rules have come into existence, namely, U.P. Transport Department Accountant Cadre (Non Existed) Service Rule 2009 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 2009) under which the petitioner could apply for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant which is equivalent to the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent in the pay scale of 5500-9000. 5. The Court has perused the Government Order dated 11th August, 1983 as also paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit which clearly indicates that the Government Order dated 11th August, 1983 is applicable for transfer of the employees from the clerical cadre to the Accountant Cadre and is not related to promotion. In any case, the G.O. could not override the statutory provisions provided under Rule 5(iii) of the Rules of 1980 which provides 50% promotion from the post of Accountant to the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. The respondents cannot contend that in view of the Government Order dated 11th August, 1983, no promotion could be made from the post of Accountant to the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. The Court is of the opinion that the Government Order dated 11th August, 1983 is not applicable and cannot override the statutory provision of promotion contained in Rule 5(iii) of the Rules of the 1980. 6. The contention of the respondent that now the Rules 2009 has been framed in which petitioner can apply is also misconceived. The petitioner claimed promotion under the Rules of 1980 upon completion of the stipulated period of service as an Accountant and his claim was liable to be considered under the Rules of 1980 in the event, the vacancies were existing. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have nowhere contended that vacancies are not available. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have nowhere contended that vacancies are not available. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion under Rule 5(iii) of the U.P. Transport Taxation (Subordinate) Services Rules 1980 from the post of Accountant to the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent afresh within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. ——————