Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 237 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Ram Govind Rai

2021-02-09

MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 06.12.2017 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/ non-appellant was allowed. 2. The case has a chequered history but to summarize it, suffice would be in regard to the initial appointment of the non-appellant on short term vacancy. The ad-hoc appointment was continued from time to time and for that last extension was from 08.08.1985 till 30.06.1986. The petitioner/ non-appellant was to be discontinued from service thus he preferred a writ petition. 3. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition to continue the petitioner/ non-appellant till selected candidates are made available. The writ petition aforesaid was finally dismissed in the year 2001. The petitioner/ non-appellant was however continued in the service and in between an order for his regularisation was also issued. The petitioner/ non-appellant even then continued till he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2018. In between when he was not paid salary, maintained the writ petition in hand to seek a direction for payment of salary from the month of November, 2013 till date. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition and even after noticing an order of dismissal of the writ petition in the year 2001 itself, the State Government did not discontinue the petitioner-appellant rather he was regularized in service. The order of regularization in service, may have been issued under mistaken belief or wrong interpretation but it remain in operation till last. After the judgment in hand also the petitioner/ non-appellant was not discontinued in service rather he was allowed to work till attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2018. 5. In the light of the facts given above, we don't find any error in the judgment so as to direct the appellant to pay the salary and allowance to the petitioner/ non-appellant, as are admissible under the law. 6. The mistake of non continuance of the non-appellant even after the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 2001 has been admitted by the appellants. It is also with admission that despite an order passed for regularization going against the rules, it was not withdrawn at any point of time either before or during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also admitted that petitioner/ non-appellant continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation. 7. It is also with admission that despite an order passed for regularization going against the rules, it was not withdrawn at any point of time either before or during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also admitted that petitioner/ non-appellant continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation. 7. In the facts and circumstances given above, there was no occasion for the appellants to deny the salary as otherwise admissible to a regular employee. Therefore, there is no reason to cause interference the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.