Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 413 (ALL)

HRIDESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-02-27

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, SUNEET KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The four appellants before the Court were appointed as Seasonal Collection Peons on 7 June 1993, 15 January 1994, 11 June 1993 and 11 June 1993 respectively. In 2004, the State Government notified the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon’s Service Rules, 2004 (Rules of 2004). Under the Rules, 50% posts of the Collection Peons were to be filled in by appointment from amongst Seasonal Collection Peons who had satisfactorily worked for a period of four fasals and were less than 45 years of age, after the recommendation of the Selection Committee. 2. Initially, an order was passed on 19 December 2005 by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad granting regular appointment to eight persons including the four appellants. A writ petition was filed before this Court (Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2006) challenging the appointment which was granted to the eight persons by the order dated 19 December 2005. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25 January 2006 to the effect that till the next date of listing, selected candidates shall not be permitted to join and if they have already joined, they shall not be paid their salary without leave of the Court. Certain candidates who belonged to the OBC category had wrongly been treated as scheduled caste candidates. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 19 December 2005 was quashed and set aside, in the following terms: “Accordingly, for the reasons given hereinabove, the order dated 19.12.2005 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, who shall call for the reports from the concerned Sub-Divisional Officers and after consideration of the candidature of the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 7 to 14 as well as such other candidates, who are eligible for being considered to be regularized under the Rules and after receipt of such reports, shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.” 3. In pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 15 June 2010 terminating the services of the eight persons who had been granted regular appointment. After a fresh exercise was carried out, the appellants filed a fresh writ petition (Civil Misc. In pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 15 June 2010 terminating the services of the eight persons who had been granted regular appointment. After a fresh exercise was carried out, the appellants filed a fresh writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60047 of 2010). That writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 5 July 2011. The learned Single Judge observed that once 50% posts were required to be filled up from amongst Seasonal Collection Peons and sixteen posts were still lying vacant, the Collector would have to undertake a fresh exercise for filling of those posts in accordance with the Rules of 2004. In pursuance thereof, it is not in dispute that all the appellants were regularized on 13 March 2012. The appellants filed a writ petition being (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63049 of 2011) seeking payment of their salary for a period of two years eight months and fourteen days between 1 October 2007 and 15 June 2010. It was their case in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the writ petition that: “That as the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioners were given appointment of regular Collection Peon on 19.12.2005, their services have been terminate don 15.6.2010. During the aforesaid period, the petitioners were paid the salary for the period 19.12.2005 to 30.9.2007 for the post of regular Collection Peon. They have not been paid salary for the period 1.10.2007 to 15.6.2010. That the petitioners had worked as regular Collection Peon during the period 19.12.2005 to 15.6.2010, but they have only been paid the salary for the period 19.12.2005 to 30.9.2007. For the rest period 1.10.2007 to 15.6.2010 the petitioners have not been paid their salary for the post of regular Collection Peon while the services of the petitioners have been terminated only on 15.6.2010 as is apparent from Annexure 7 to the writ petition.” 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to the writ petition. Specifically with reference to the averments contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the writ petition, it was stated that, following the interim order dated 25 January 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2006, the payment of salary to the appellants was stopped. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to the writ petition. Specifically with reference to the averments contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the writ petition, it was stated that, following the interim order dated 25 January 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2006, the payment of salary to the appellants was stopped. However, as the writ petition was dismissed in default on 2 May 2007, they were paid their salary from the date of appointment up to 30 September 2007. The writ petition was restored on 13 August 2007. Following this, between 1 October 2007 to 15 June 2010, no salary was paid as no permission or order was obtained of the learned Single Judge of this Court and the matter was subjudice. Hence, according to the State, the District Collector terminated the services of the appellants on 15 June 2010 and since no direction was issued in the order of the learned Single Judge for the payment of salary during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellants were not paid their salary from 1 October 2007 to 15 June 2010 awaiting the final verdict of the Court. 5. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that the State was bound to pay their salary as regular Collection Peons during the period from 1 October 2007 to 15 June 2010. 6. At the outset, we may indicate that we are not accepting this submission for the payment of salary to the appellants as regular Collection Peons during the aforesaid period. The order of appointment dated 19 December 2005 was a subject-matter of a writ petition in which an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 25 January 2006 that the appellants herein (who were respondents to that writ petition) shall not be allowed to join or if they have already joined, they shall not be paid their salary. The orders of appointment of the appellants were set aside by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6 May 2010. There was no direction in the judgment of the learned Single Judge for the payment of salary to the appellants as regular Collection Peons during the pendency of the writ proceedings for the period for which they had worked. There was no direction in the judgment of the learned Single Judge for the payment of salary to the appellants as regular Collection Peons during the pendency of the writ proceedings for the period for which they had worked. Obviously, there was no occasion to pay the appellants their salary admissible to a regular Collection Peon since the regular appointment was set aside. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this submission. 7. However, it has been urged that in the alternative, the appellants should have been, at least, paid whatever they were entitled to as Seasonal Collection Peons for the period for which they had actually worked. 8. In this regard, a distinction was sought to be made between the regular appointment as Seasonal Collection Peons of the appellants and the appointment of the appellants as Seasonal Collection Peons and it was urged that at least for the period for which they worked, they should not have been deprived of wages as ad hoc or seasonal employees. We find merit in this submission. 9. The issue in the writ proceedings was the legality of the regular appointment of the appellants which was eventually quashed and set aside. It is not in dispute that the appellants had actually worked during the period 1 October 2007 to 15 June 2010 since the averment in paragarph 29 of the writ petition was not denied by the State in its counter. All that the State had indicated, was that in view of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, their salary was stopped and eventually, after the writ petition was allowed and the regular appointment was set aside, the services of the appellants were terminated. This, undoubtedly, would be a valid ground for denying the appellants their salary as regular Collection Peons during the aforesaid period. However, the State cannot be heard to deny the payment to the appellants, subject to due verification, as seasonal employees or ad hoc employees, if they have not been paid. This verification shall be duly conducted by the competent authority within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If any payment remains to be payable to the appellants in a seasonal or ad hoc capacity, that payment shall be expeditiously made. 10. This verification shall be duly conducted by the competent authority within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If any payment remains to be payable to the appellants in a seasonal or ad hoc capacity, that payment shall be expeditiously made. 10. The order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is, accordingly, set aside and shall stand substituted in terms of the aforesaid directions. 11. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————