Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3471 (ALL)

Heere v. State of U. P.

2016-10-18

RAJAN ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein who was initially engaged as Chowkidar (Anuchar) was provided regular/ permanent appointment as Clerk since 1.9.1998 under the quota meant for S.C./S.T. Category. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that although the petitioner was declared a permanent Clerk, but in fact it is an order of promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the petitioner was not promoted but was confirmed on the post of Clerk , therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, as per the order passed by the Supreme Court on 20.08.2015 in Contempt Proceedings arising out of the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has been restrained from entertaining any kind of petition with regard to controversy covered by the decision rendered in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.(supra) or even linked with them. While disposing of the contempt proceedings the Supreme Court has made the following observations: - "Be it noted, it has been stated in the affidavit that if anyone is grieved by the order of reversion or in case of any grievance that a person ought to have been reverted, if raised, shall be decided on top priority by the State Government. We inquired from Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State that who would be the competent authority who will decide it, learned counsel has submitted that he has instructions to state that Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of U.P., shall decide the same. If anyone is grieved by the decision taken by the said authority, the said person is entitled to file an interlocutory application before this Court in the disposed of Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2011 and connected appeals, so that suitable order can be passed. The purpose of stating so is that no other court shall entertain the challenge to the grievance of any person. "We will be failing in our duty if we do not note another aspect before we close these contempt petitions. A number of writ petitions have been filed which have been listed today and they pertain to reversion. The purpose of stating so is that no other court shall entertain the challenge to the grievance of any person. "We will be failing in our duty if we do not note another aspect before we close these contempt petitions. A number of writ petitions have been filed which have been listed today and they pertain to reversion. They call in question the validity of the order of reversion. They shall be dealt with independently when we address the writ petitions." At this juncture, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State, has drawn our attention to paragraph 6(f) of the affidavit dated 12th September, 2015. The said paragraph reads as follows: "On the vacancies which will be available as a result of aforesaid reversions, proceedings of promotion shall be conducted as per the amended seniority list." CP(C) 214/13 6 The State Government is at liberty to proceed accordingly. Needless to emphasize, our above said observation for granting liberty to the State will not be an impediment in adjudication of the writ petitions which have been filed before this Court. The contemnors in the contempt petitions are discharged. The contempt petitions are, accordingly, disposed of." "All the applications filed in the contempt petitions stand disposed of. W.P.(C) No.273/2015, W.P.(C) No.652/2015, W.P.(C) No.656/2015, W.P.(C) No.638/2015, W.P.(C) No.639/2015, W.P. (C) No.725/2015, W.P.(C) No.726/2015 , "Let these matters be listed along with the record/paper-book of W.P.(C) No.698 of 2015, on 3 rd November, 2015." Subsequently on 24.11.2015 the Supreme Court passed the following order in Contempt Petition (C) No. 214 of 2013 arising out of C.A. No. 2679 of 2011: - "Taken on board. It has been submitted by Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State that a paragraph that occurs at parge 5 of the order dated 13.10.2015 requires to be modified. The said paragraph reads as under: - "Be it noted, it has been stated in the affidavit that if anyone is grieved by the order of reversion or in case of any grievance that a person ought to have been reverted, if raised, shall be decided on top priority by the State Government. We inquired from Mr. The said paragraph reads as under: - "Be it noted, it has been stated in the affidavit that if anyone is grieved by the order of reversion or in case of any grievance that a person ought to have been reverted, if raised, shall be decided on top priority by the State Government. We inquired from Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State that who would be the competent authority who will decide it, learned counsel has submitted that he has instructions to state that Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of U.P., shall decide the same. If anyone is grieved by the decision taken by the said authority, the said person is entitled to file an interlocutory application before this Court in the disposed of Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2011 and connected appeals, so that suitable order can be passed. The purpose of stating so is that no other court shall entertain the challenge to the grievance of any person. "It is contended by Mr. Mehrotra that there are round one thousand representations/grievance petitions and a singular authority is not in a position to take the decision on the same. It is urged by him that instead of Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of U.P, it may be substituted as Principal Secretary/Head of the Department in respect of employees of the State, and the Managing Director of the Corporations (Competent Authority/Appointing Authority) who shall decide the petitions in respect of the employees of the Corporation. The said prayer is accepted. At this juncture, it is necessary to further add that anyone who shall make a representation mitigating its grievance, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the concerned authority, as mentioned hereinabove, shall decide the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The persons who have not submitted the representation mitigating their grievance, may submit the petitions/representations within four weeks hence. Anyone who is grieved by the decision of the competent authority, will be entitled to file an application in the disposed of Civil Appeal and other connected appeals, as has been mentioned in the earlier order. We may hasten to add that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order so that it can be appreciated by this Court. Anyone who is grieved by the decision of the competent authority, will be entitled to file an application in the disposed of Civil Appeal and other connected appeals, as has been mentioned in the earlier order. We may hasten to add that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned order so that it can be appreciated by this Court. Needless to emphasis that any representation which has to be decided, has to be in the light of the principles enshrined in U.P. Power Corporation Letc. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC1. Needles to say, the competent authority shall be guided by the principles of of objectivity while passing the order. The order dated 13.10.2015 is modified to the above extent." 6. As the petitioner herein is challenging the order of his reversion which has been issued in pursuance to the dictum of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., therefore, in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 214 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2011 this court cannot entertain this writ petition. The remedy, if any, lies in the terms of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court and not before this Court. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.