Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1674 (ALL)

Vishwa Nath Dubey v. State of U. P.

2018-07-30

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Arora, J. Heard Mr. Viswa Nath Dubey, petitioner-in-person and Mr. Pankaj Nath, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.1.2017 passed by the opposite party No.1-Principal Secretary, Department of Nagar Vikas, Lucknow, whereby his claim for promotion and salary on higher post i.e. Additional Municipal Commissioner has been rejected. 3. In addition to the aforesaid relief, by means of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 9.11.2015, by which his claim for regularization on the post of Executive Officer/Assistant Municipal Commissioner w.e.f. 17.5.1985 has been denied. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.12.2015, by which seniority to the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer Class-I/Assistant Municipal Commissioner above to Sri Shashi Bhushan Bharti has been denied. He has also challenged the order dated 28.1.2016, by which selection grade of Rs.3700-5000 and higher selection grade of Rs.4500-5700 and promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner w.e.f. 9.10.1995 and salary of the aforesaid post w.e.f. 9.10.1995 till 31.12.2005 in respect of duties performed by him with all benefits of service has been denied. 4. According to the petitioner, after due selection, he was appointed as Executive Officer Class-II in Municipal Board against substantive vacancy on temporary basis in the pay-scale of Rs.250-600 vide order dated 5.9.1972 under Rule 31 of U.P. Palika (Centralised Service) Rules, 1966. His appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. He was placed at serial No.6 in the seniority list. In pursuance to the aforesaid appointment order dated 5.9.1972, the petitioner joined his service at Ballia on 11.9.1972. Later on, his services were regularized vide order dated 8.1.1987 and subsequently, w.e.f. 8.1.1986 vide order dated 25.8.2005. 5. It has been averred in the writ petition that though the petitioner was entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.10.1974 as per provision of Rule 21 or at least w.e.f. 5.9.1975 as per Government Order dated 12.5.1978 after completion of three years continuous services but the same was not done in the case of the petitioner and instead his juniors were regularized and promoted. Therefore, the petitioner has to file writ petition No. 16548 of 1991 before this Court, in which, this Court has passed the following order on 12.7.1993 : "Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In modification of the interim mandamus dated 24.2.1993, the respondents are directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation annexures 16 & 17, whereby the petitioner claimed entitlement for regularization on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II and promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I with effect from the date on which his juniors were regularized and promoted on the aforesaid post, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In case his representation finds favour with the respondents, the appropriate consequential orders may be issued forthwith. The respondents are further directed to consider and examine the petitioner's claim for the promotion to the post of UP Nagar Adhikari within the same period in accordance with law that is to say in accordance with U.P. Palika Centralized Service Rules, 1976 as amended from time to time and as interpreted by Division Bench of this Court in Hamid Ullah Vs. State of U.P., 1982 UPLBEC 215. It is made clear that ad hoc or temporary promotions if necessiated due to the exigencies of administration may be made a strictly in accordance with Rule 31 of the Rules as interpreted by the Division Bench aforesaid subject to fulfillment of eligibility and other qualifications for the said post and also subject to the final decision on this writ petition. It is, however, clarified that this may not be taken to be a direction for making promotion in supersation and negation of the legitimate claim of any other eligible and qualified officer. The interim mandamus is made absolute with the above clarification/modification." 6. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioner was considered and he was granted promotion to the post of Executive Officer Class-I/Sahayak Nagar Adhikari in the pay-scale of Rs.500-1100 from the date of promotion of his junior i.e. w.e.f. 19.2.1977. Subsequently, vide order dated 5.12.1994, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari from the date of promotion of his junior i.e. w.e.f. 6.3.1987. 7. Subsequently, vide order dated 5.12.1994, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari from the date of promotion of his junior i.e. w.e.f. 6.3.1987. 7. Not satisfied with the date of promotion, the petitioner has preferred a supplementary affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition (No.16548 of 1991), praying therein to grant regularization of the services of the petitioner as Executive Officer Grade-II w.e.f. 5.9.1974, Executive Officer Grade-I w.e.f. 19.2.1987, Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1982 and Apar Mukhya Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 5.10.1997 and further the petitioner be provided with all the consequential benefits of the promotion for the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980 instead of 5.3.1987 and selection grade in the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5000 w.e.f. 19.2.1992. This Court, vide order dated 22.9.1999, disposed of the writ petition No. 16548 of 1991 with a direction to the State Government to consider the representation and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, keeping in view the recommendation made by the Director, Local Bodies, vide letter dated 13.6.1994. In pursuance to the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the State Government vide order dated 6.4.2002. 8. In the meantime, aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties in not giving salary for the post of Deputy Administrator/Upper Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 13385 of 1998, which was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 5.8.1999 with a direction to the Secretary, Urban Development to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 24.10.1997 and 2.12.1997 and pass appropriate order. In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 4.11.1999. 9. Not being satisfied with the order dated 4.11.1999, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 48453 of 1999. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 7.7.2005, while allowing the writ petition, set-aside the order dated 4.11.1999 and directed the State Government to decide the representation of the petitioner again afresh after considering the order dated 5.12.2004 passed by the Governor and the Government Order dated 31.1.1997 by a reasoned and speaking order. 10. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2005 from the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner (In-charge). 10. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2005 from the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner (In-charge). However, in pursuance to the order dated 7.7.2005, the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary for the post of Apar Nagar Ayukt was re-considered and the State Government, vide order dated 15.11.2006, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred amendment application in pending writ petition No. 1055 of 1994, claiming therein promotions and salary etc., which was allowed. Subsequently, writ petition No. 1055 of 1994 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. 11. According to the petitioner, after dismissal of the writ petition No. 1055 of 1994 as withdrawn, the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 1241 of 2009 (S/B), which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.1.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred review petition No. 45 (S/B) of 2015, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 12.1.2015. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2015, allowed the review petition to the extent that if the censure entry stands expunged, then, the review petitioner has a right to be considered for notional promotion. It was also directed to the opposite parties to consider the claim of the review petitioner for notional promotion, subject to the condition that juniors to the review petitioner have also been given similar benefits. 12. In the meantime, vide order dated 9.11.2015, services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. the date of regularization of his junior i.e. 13.11.2003 on the post of Executive Officer Grade-I/Sahayak Nagar Ayukta. Further, in pursuance to the order dated 23.4.2015, the State Government considered the issue of notional promotion of the petitioner and vide order dated 30.11.2015, re-fixed the seniority of the petitioner at serial No. 43-A. However, in pursuance to the direction of this Court issued vide order dated 23.4.2015 with regard to grant of selection grade, the petitioner was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.12000-16500 vide order dated 28.1.2016 from the date his junior was given i.e. w.e.f. 19.9.2004. 13. Hence the instant writ petition. 14. 13. Hence the instant writ petition. 14. Submission of the petitioner, who appeares in person, is that after upgrading of three City Boards, namely, Moradabad, Ghaziabad and Aligarh in the year 1994 as Nagar Nigam, S/Sri Ahsanur Rehman, Ram Awatar Gupta and the petitioner, the then Executive Officer of the respective Board, had automatically become Up Nagar Adhikari of respective Nagar Nigam since both posts i.e. Executive Officer and Up Nagar Adhikari are equivalent. Subsequently, as per provisions of Section 58 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, the State Government nominated all three Up Nagar Adhikari as Deputy Administrator of the aforesaid respective Nagar Nigam. Thereafter, in constituted Board of Nagar Nigam, aforesaid all three Deputy Administrator had automatically become Apar Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of aforesaid Nagar Nigam. His submission is that S/Sri Ahsanur Rahman and Ram Awatar Gupta had been paid salary in the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5000 for the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner till the date they worked on aforesaid post but in similar circumstances, the petitioner has been denied salary for the aforesaid post while the petitioner also worked as full fledged Additional Municipal Commissioner from 9.10.1995 to the date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2005 (more than ten years continuous service) under the direction of the High Court and as per the order of State Government in different Nagar Nigam. Thus, the action of the opposite party No.1 is against the principle of natural justice. 15. Elaborating his submission, the petitioner has submitted that he was initially appointed to the post of Executive Officer-II on 5.9.1972 against substantive vacancy and posted at Nagar Palika, Ballia where he joined on 11.9.1972. He was regularized on the aforesaid post, therefore, he became a regular member of U.P. Palika Centralized (Administrative Superior) Service. His submission is that S/Sri R.C. Srivastava, Udai Veer Singh Rathore and others, who were juniors to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner in the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5000 and they were paid salary of aforesaid post while they had been appointed to the post of Executive Engineer Gr. II and promoted to the post of Executive Officer Gr.I and Up Nagar Adhikari after about ten years from the date of appointment and promotion of the petitioner on the aforesaid posts. II and promoted to the post of Executive Officer Gr.I and Up Nagar Adhikari after about ten years from the date of appointment and promotion of the petitioner on the aforesaid posts. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for promotion on the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner w.e.f. 9.10.1995 and not w.e.f. the date of promotion of Sri R.C. Srivastava and other juniors to the petitioner. 16. Petitioner has submitted that in Review Petition No. 45 (S/B) of 2015 in re: writ petition No. 1241 (S/B) of 2009, this Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2015, allowed the Review Petition and further directed to grant similar benefit of service which had been granted to the juniors to the petitioner along with promotion on the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner. Further, vide order dated 12.7.1993, this Court directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Gr.I and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. the date on which juniors to the petitioner were promoted in accordance with Rule, 1966 and Rules as interpreted by Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 2808 (S/B) of 1980 : Hamidullah Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 4.3.1982. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.4.1994, the State Government directed the Director, Local Bodies to examine and to submit report regarding eligibility, suitability and seniority of the petitioner for promotion as Executive officer Class-I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 and as Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980. 17. Petitioner has averred that in pursuant to the letter of the State Government dated 29.4.1994, the Director, Local Bodies, vide letter dated 13.6.1994, recommended to promote the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Gr.I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 and to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980, mentioning name of S/sri Luxmi Narain, Rejendra Prasad Singh and other juniors to the petitioner, who were promoted to the post of Executive Officer-I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 and to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980. Subsequently, vide letter dated 14.5.2008, the State Government again directed the Director Local Bodies to submit report in respect of promotion of the petitioner on higher post of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari and regarding other points of writ petition No. 1055 (S/B) of 1994 : Vishwa Nath Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others. Subsequently, vide letter dated 14.5.2008, the State Government again directed the Director Local Bodies to submit report in respect of promotion of the petitioner on higher post of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari and regarding other points of writ petition No. 1055 (S/B) of 1994 : Vishwa Nath Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others. The Director Local Bodies, vide letter dated 28.5.2008, submitted its report reitratating his prior recommendation dated 13.6.1994 to promote the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer Gr.I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 and to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980 the date on which a large number of juniors to the petitioner had been promoted. 18. Petitioner has submitted that despite the recommendation of the Director Local Bodies, the State Government, vide order dated 29.11.1994, promoted the petitioner as Executive Engineer Gr.I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 on regular basis while the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Gr.I w.e.f. 31.1.1974 the date on which large number of juniors to the petitioner had been promoted. 19. Petitioner has further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 12.7.1993 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 16548(SB) of 1991, the State Government vide order dated 29.11.1994 promoted the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Class-I with effect from 19.2.1977 whereas he was entitled to get promotion with effect from 31.1.1974 on the post of Executive Officer and on the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980. Thus, the action of the respondents is unjustified and unreasonable. 20. It has been submitted by the petitioner that after lasting such a length of time of about 39 years, the opposite party No.1 has wrongly treated the regular promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Gr. I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 as ad hoc promotion and regularized the petitioner vide order dated 9.11.2015 w.e.f. 13.11.2003 only to deprive from service benefits. 21. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Executive Officer Gr.II purely on temporary basis in the U.P. Municipal (Centralized) Executive Services vide Office Memorandum dated 5.9.1972. The petitioner was given regular appointment by the Director, Local Bodies vide his order dated 8.1.1987 pursuant to which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 16 in the seniority list of Executive officers Gr.II dated 31.3.2000 prepared by the Directorate. The petitioner was given regular appointment by the Director, Local Bodies vide his order dated 8.1.1987 pursuant to which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 16 in the seniority list of Executive officers Gr.II dated 31.3.2000 prepared by the Directorate. The State Government, vide orders dated 2.2.2005 and 11.2.2005, issued directions with regard to regularization of services of the senior officers and employees from the date of regularization of their junior officers and employees and fix their seniority accordingly. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner's services were regularized vide order dated 25.8.2005 passed by the Director w.e.f. 8.1.1986. However, the petitioner could not be regularized on the post of Executive Officer Gr.I/Assistant Municipal Commissioner since a departmental inquiry was pending against him. Further, the petitioner's name did not find mention in the seniority list dated 20.4.2010 issued by the Directorate since he retired from service on 31.12.2005. 22. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further submitted that aggrieved by the deductions made from his post retiral dues as repayment of loan amount, the petitioner had preferred writ petition No. 1108 (S/B) of 2007, which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2014 with a direction for payment of the post retiral dues of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another writ petition No. 1241 (S/B) of 2009, claiming seniority and payment of salary of Additional Municipal Commissioner (officiating). This Court, vide judgment and order dated 12.1.2015, dismissed the writ petition and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a review petition No. 45 of 2015, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2015 with the observation that if the censure entry stands expunged, then, the review petitioner has a right to be considered for notional promotion. Further, a direction was issued to the opposite parties to consider the claim of the review petitioner for notional promotion, subject to the condition juniors to the review petitioner have also been given similar benefits. 23. Further, a direction was issued to the opposite parties to consider the claim of the review petitioner for notional promotion, subject to the condition juniors to the review petitioner have also been given similar benefits. 23. Submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 23.4.2015, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 43-A (just after Sri Govind Swarup Mehra at Serial No. 43 and before Sri Mahendra Nath Chaturvedi at serial No. 44) in the final seniority list of Executive Officer Gr.I/Assistant Municipal Commissioner of U.P. Palika (Centralized) Executive (Upper) Services vide order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the State Government. In these backgrounds, his submission is that no incumbent junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner and no justification was found in giving notional promotion and granting him other consequential dues. 24. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that since selection grade of Rs.12000-16500 was granted to Sri Mahendra Nath Chaturvedi, who was junior to the petitioner w.e.f. 19.9.2004, the petitioner too was granted selection grade of Rs.12000-16500 w.e.f. 19.9.2004 vide office memorandum dated 28.1.2016 and Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, where the petitioner was last posted at the time of his retirement, was directed to make payment of arrear. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been paid all the dues. In these backgrounds, his submission is that the representations of the petitioner dated 29.9.2016, 25.10.2016, 4.11.2016, 28.11.2016 and 26.12.2016 have been decided by the State Government vide a detailed speaking order dated 27.1.2017. 25. Lastly, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary of Additional Municipal Commissioner since he was holding only additional charge of Additional Municipal Commissioner. 26. We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 27. While challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner has raised following points for adjudication of the matter : i. Rule 31 of the Rule, 1966 was deleted on 1.10.1974, hence, the services of the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Class-2 continued under Rule 21 on regular basis w.e.f. 1.10.1974 or at least w.e.f. 5.9.1975 as per the provisions of Government Order dated 12.5.1978 specially circulated for regularization of employees of local bodies. ii. ii. Promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 31.1.1974 or at least w.e.f. 11.3.1980 respectively, the dates on which juniors to the petitioner had been promoted. iii. Regular promotions of the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Class-I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 6.3.1987 should not be treated as ad hoc promotion after 39 years. iv. Salary of the petitioner for his working period to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner as Juniors of the petitioner had been granted promotion on the aforesaid post w.e.f. due date. v. Selection Grade of Up Nagar Adhikari i.e. Rs.3700-5000 as per provision of Government Order dated 29.7.1986 after 12 years of continuous service and subsequent higher selection grade of Rs.4500-5700 as per provision of Government Order dated 19.1.1996 be granted to the petitioner as has been granted to the juniors to the petitioner. 28. In respect of issue No.(i), petitioner has submitted that the services of the petitioner is governed by U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966, under which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Officer Class-II on temporary basis vide order dated 5.9.1972. Rule 1966 provides prower of regular appointment under Rule 21 and power of ad hoc appointment is made under Rule 31. Aforesaid Rule 31 was deleted on 1.10.1974. Therefore, the State Government had only power of Rule 21 for regular appointment under which the services of the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Class-II was continued on regular basis. According to him that once the petitioner had come in service on regular basis, then, there is no justification to put the petitioner again as temporary or ad hoc appointee. It has been stated that the State Government circulated a Government Order dated 12.5.1978 by which the employees of local bodies who had been appointed on 1.1.1977 or before 1.1.1977, they had to be regularized after completion of three years continuous services on the post. In these backgrounds, his submission is that under Rule 21 of the Rule, 1966, the petitioner ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 1.10.1974 and if not so then, w.e.f. 5.9.1975 under the provisions of Government Order dated 12.5.1978 but opposite party No.2 had arbitrarily regularized the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer Class-II w.e.f. 8.1.1987 and thereafter, w.e.f. 8.1.1986. 29. 29. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the State is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II on regular basis only on 8.1.1987 vide order of the Director, Local Bodies after his services were regularized w.e.f. 8.1.1986. The petitioner, prior to filing the present writ petition, has never claimed for his reguarlization on the basis of Government Order dated 12.5.1978, therefore, after enjoying the fruits of employment and after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, he has no right to challenge the date of regularization belatedly after three decades or so. 30. Appreciating the submissions of the parties, we find that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to when he has claimed regularization on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II as per Rules, 1966 and Government Order dated 12.5.1978. It appears that the petitioner has never agitated the issue of date of his regularization prior to the present writ petition, though the petitioner has filed several writ petitions on different occasions during his employment. Thus, we are of the view that at this belated stage, the issue of regularization cannot be adjudicated. Hence, the claim of the petitioner at this stage for regularization on the post of Executive Officer Gr.II is liable to be rejected. 31. In respect of issue Nos.2 and 3, the contention of the petitioner is that in writ petition No. 16548 (S/B) of 1991, this Court, vide order dated 12.7.1993, directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. the date on which his juniors had been promoted. In compliance of the aforesaid direction dated 12.7.1993, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Officer Class-I w.e.f. 19.2.1977 vide order dated 29.4.1994 while his juniors had been promoted to the Executive Officer Class-I w.e.f. 31.1.1974. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 6.3.1987 vide order dated 5.12.1994 while his juniors had been promoted to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980. Thereafter, writ petition No. 16548 (S/B) of 1991 was disposed of with the direction to promote the petitioner to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980 as per recommendation of the Director, Local Bodies dated 13.6.1994. Thereafter, writ petition No. 16548 (S/B) of 1991 was disposed of with the direction to promote the petitioner to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980 as per recommendation of the Director, Local Bodies dated 13.6.1994. But the opposite party No.1 vide order dated 6.4.2002 rejected the claim of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 31.1.1974 and 11.3.1980 by mentioning that the tentative seniority list dated 22.12.1986 cannot be a ground or basis for the promotions of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his junior. 32. The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of tentative seniority list dated 22.12.1986, Sri Ahsanur Rahman had been granted promotion to the post of Executive Officer Class-I w.e.f. back date when his junior had been promoted and subsequently, vide order dated 9.8.1988, Sri Ahsanur Rahman had been promoted to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. back date when his junior had been promoted vide order dated 29.4.1987 and 9.8.1988. Similarly, S/sri Abdul Aziz Khan and Inteza Rasool, Tax Superintendent, who were much junior and subordinate to the petitioner had also been promoted to the post of Executive Officer-I w.e.f. 31.1.1974 and to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 11.3.1980 vide order dated 18.9.1995. According to the petitioner, in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, the reason for not considering promotion of the petitioner on respective posts was pendency of inquiry. According to him, if any inquiry was pending and it was concluded without any punishment and the petitioner was fully exonerated, then, aforesaid promotions of the petitioner on the posts of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari should ought to have been granted w.e.f. 31.1.1974 and 11.3.1980 respectively, the date on which juniors to the petitioner had been promoted. 33. A perusal of the record reveals that in respect of promotion to the post of Executive Officer-I and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. the date junior to the petitioner has been promoted, the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 16548 of 1991, in which initially an ad interim order dated 24.1.1993 was passed, directing the opposite party No.1 to promote the petitioner as Up Nagar Adhikari within the period specified in the order or to show cause within the same time. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.7.1993, the opposite parties were directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation wherein he had claimed entitlement for regularization on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II and promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I with effect from the date on which his juniors were regularized and promoted on the aforesaid post. It was also stipulated in the order dated 18.7.1993 that in case the petitioner's representation found favour with the opposite parties, appropriate consequential orders would be issued forthwith. The opposite parties were further directed to consider and examine the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Up Nagar Adhikari in accordance with the UP Palika Centralized Service Rules, 1966 as amended from time to time and as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Hamid Ullah Vs. State of U.P., 1982 UPLBEC 215. It was also made clear that ad hoc or temporary promotions if necessitated due to the exigencies of administration would be made strictly in accordance with Rule 31 of the Rules as interpreted by the Division Behch in the case referred to above. The clarificatory rider was added in the order dated 12.7.1993 that the direction aforestated would not be taken to be direction for making promotion in supersession and negation of any legitimate claim of any other eligible and qualified Officer. It was with these observation that the initial interim mandamus was modified. 34. The record further reveals that in pursuance to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the State Government took a decision vide order dated 5.10.1997 giving promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 6.3.1987 vide order dated 5.12.1994. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred representation. Thereafter, this Court, vide order dated 22.9.1999, disposed of the writ petition with the direction to consider the representation and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, keeping in view the recommendation made by the Director, Local Bodies vide letter dated 13.6.1994. 35. It appears that in pursuance to the order dated 22.9.1999, the State Government considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion but the same was rejected vide order dated 6.4.2002. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it has been indicated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II purely on temporary basis till further order of the State Government. His services were regularized w.e.f. 8.1.1987. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it has been indicated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II purely on temporary basis till further order of the State Government. His services were regularized w.e.f. 8.1.1987. The petitioner claimed promotion on the higher post on the basis of tentative seniority list dated 22.12.1986 which is not acceptable. The final seniority list dated 10.2.1997 has been prepared in pursuance to the direction/observation dated 17.12.1996 of the Apex Court given in Special Leave Petition No. 1105 of 1996 : Ram Ganesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others. In the final seniority list dated 10.2.1997, the name of the petitioner did not find place for the reason that the petitioner has not been promoted on regular basis on the post of Executive Officer-I but he has been promoted on the post of Executive Officer-I on ad hoc basis. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for promotion of Sri Abdul Aziz Khan and Sri Intezar Rasul Warsi is concerned, it has been pointed out that these officers were promoted in pursuance to the direction of this Court dated 25.11.1991 passed in writ petition No. 11795 of 1981, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for promotion from the date of promotion of these officers is unjustified and cannot be accepted. 36. Insofar as the letter/recommendation of the Director, Local Bodies dated 13.6.1994 is concerned, it has been stated in the order dated 6.4.2002 that on the representation preferred by the wife of the petitioner, the Director Local Bodies had made recommendation dated 13.6.1994 with regard to the promotion of the petitioner on the basis of tentative seniority list. But when final seniority list dated 31.3.2000 was published, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 16. It has also been stated that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted. 37. But when final seniority list dated 31.3.2000 was published, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 16. It has also been stated that no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted. 37. This Court may also note that on 30.8.84, the State Government inserted Rule 21 (A) by means of Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Services (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 1984, according to which members of services working on ad hoc basis prior to May 1, 1983 and is continuing in service, as such on the date of commencement of these Rules; possessed requisite qualifications prescribed under rule 12 for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and have completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his service record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the provisions contained in these Rules. Rule 21 (A) further provides that in making regular appointment under these rules reservation for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward classes and other categories, shall be made in accordance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. The Rules itself does not conceive any claim for regularization prior to its enforcement and upon consideration of ad hoc employee according to criteria laid therein. That being the position of law would by itself negate the claim of the petitioner which cannot be construed contrary to the statutory criteria. 38. In Ram Ganesh Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 1 SCC 621 , the Apex Court in para-7 has held as under :- "7. Rule 21-A provides for regularisation of service of ad hoc employees by treating them as persons appointed in the service on the date of their regularisation. Rule 9 provides that a person appointed under that Rule shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of appointment after selection in accordance with the said rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the employees appointed in accordance with the procedure for direct recruitment prior to the appointment of such persons under those Rules. Rule 9 provides that a person appointed under that Rule shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of appointment after selection in accordance with the said rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the employees appointed in accordance with the procedure for direct recruitment prior to the appointment of such persons under those Rules. In view of these statutory Rules, the Government could not have treated the respondents and other ad hoc employees whose services were regularised on 17.5.1985 as persons regularly appointed from an earlier date. Nor could the Government have counted seniority from an earlier date either for promotion to the higher post or for the purpose of giving selection grade." 39. Appreciating the rival submissions putforth by the parties and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Ganesh Tripathi (supra), we find that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Class-I and Up Nagar Adhikari w.e.f. 31.1.1974 or at least w.e.f. 11.3.1980 respectively, the dates on which juniors of the petitioner had been promoted, is untenable as it has rightly been asserted by the respondents that services of the petitioner were regularized on 8.1.987 and he was promoted on the post of Executive Officer Gr.I and Up Nagar Adhikari purely on ad hoc or temporary basis and the petitioner was only assigned the duties of Executive Officer Gr.I and Up Nagar Adhikari in the exigencies of work. Therefore, we are of the view that since petitioner has failed to demonstrate anything which establishes his claim for promotion to the higher post with the date mentioned hereinabove, therefore, the plea of the petitioner on this issue is not acceptable and is hereby rejected. 40. In respect of issue No.4 and 5, the stand of the opposite parties is that no incumbent junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner and further the seniority list of Executive Officer Gr.I/Assistant Municipal Commissioner was determined by the department on 20.4.2010, in which the name of the petitioner is placed at serial No. 43-A. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2005 and Sri Udai Veer Singh Rathore was promoted to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner on 8.4.2013 and at that relevant time, the petitioner was not in service, therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted. 41. 41. Considering the facts in its entirety, we are of the view that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 23.4.2015 passed by this Court in Review Petition No. 45 of 2015, the petitioner was placed at serial No 43-A (just after Sri Govind Swarup Mehra at serial No. 43 and before Sri Mahendra Nath Chaturvedi at serial No. 44) in the final seniority list of Executive Officer Grade-I/Assistant Municipal Commissioner of U.P. Palika (Centralized) Executive (Upper) Services. Further, since no incumbent junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Additional Municipal Commissioner, no justification was found in giving notional promotion to the petitioner and granting him other consequential post-retiral dues. Since Selection Grade of Rs.12000-16500 was granted to Sri Mahendra Nath Chaturvedi, who was junior to the petitioner, w.e.f. 19.9.2004, the petitioner too was granted selection grade of Rs.12000-16500 with effect from 19.9.2004 vide office memorandum dated 28.1.2016. 42. For the reason aforesaid, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 43. The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 44. There is no order as to costs.