Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2283 (ALL)

Raksh Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-07-04

RAJAN ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. Heard. 2. This writ petition was filed in the year 1993, inter alia, challenging vires of Section 5(b) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976 insofar as it imposed a ban on grant of interim orders and striking down the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 as amended upto date insofar as it fixes cut of date as 1.10.1986 for regularization of services. Relief (b) in the writ petition is for commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service and treat him in service with all benefits of service and regularization. 3. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate has made a statement that the petitioner is not working in the Family Court or the District Judgeship, Meerut since 28.2.1993, as according to him, his services, which were ad hoc, automatically came to an end in February 1993 in terms of the government order on the subject. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in rebuttal. 5. The fact of the matter as borne out from the reading of the record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties is that the petitioner herein was appointed purely on ad hoc basis as Sadar Munsarim in the Family Court, Meerut initially upto 28.2.1992 which was subsequently extended vide order 4.2.1993. The Administrative Judge in his inspection-report, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure CA-3, has mentioned that all such appointments including on the post of Sadar Munsarim were illegally made. It was also observed that the entire present staff including the petitioner is a raw-hand and does not know the A,B,C of General Rule (Civil) or (Criminal). Various other illegalities had been mentioned therein. Certain government orders have been annexed as Annexure No.CA-2 one of which is dated 8.6.2010 which governs the engagement of ad hoc employees. One of the conditions was that such ad hoc appointment should not be made. If made under exigency, it should not continue for more than one year and should automatically come to an end at the end of February of the relevant year. 6. Be that as it may, relief no. One of the conditions was that such ad hoc appointment should not be made. If made under exigency, it should not continue for more than one year and should automatically come to an end at the end of February of the relevant year. 6. Be that as it may, relief no. (a) in the writ petition has been included only to carve out the jurisdiction of this Bench at Lucknow to entertain the writ petition, as, the cause-of-action, if any, was based on non-continuance of the petitioner in service, therefore, relief no.(a) was not at all relevant. The relevant relief, if at all, was relief (b) for which the cause of action arose at Meerut. In any case, vires of Section 5(b) of the Act of 1976 has already been upheld by this court in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P., (2000)3 UPLBEC 2553 , As far as the cut of date mentioned in the Regularization Rules is concerned, the same has already undergone a change and was not at all relevant to the controversy. 7. Grievance of the petitioner, if any, regarding his non-continuance was not maintainable at Lucknow and even today is not maintainable before this court at Lucknow as the cause-of-action, if any, arose at Meerut, therefore, in these circumstances this court finds no reason to show any further indulgence in the matter. As far as relief no.(a) is concerned, same is rejected as having outlived its utility. As far as relief no.(b) is concerned, the petitioner may file a writ petition at Allahabad or before any other Forum as he chooses, but this court has no reason to continue these proceedings any further.. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.