Om Prakash Dwivedi v. State of U.P
Case Details
Heard Shri Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shad Azaam, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that identical issue arise before this Court in the Division Bench in the bunch of the writ petitions with regard to teaching staff. After elaborate discussions the said bunch of writ petitions was disposed of with the following directions:- "32. Now the question in the case in hand is as to what relief should be granted to the petitioners to meet the end of justice. We have already held that the order impugned has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order dated 01.03.2014 is passed by Authorised Controller reducing the salary of petitioners to the level of year 1998 is quashed.
33. From the pleadings in the writ petitions it is manifest that the petitioners have not been appointed by adopting due procedure as provided under the Rules. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Rules contemplated for appointment has been followed and the petitioners have been appointed on an advertisement followed by selection by a duly constituted selection committee.
34. It is clear from the record that the petitioners have approached through their Association by means of Writ A No.54612 of 2000 before this Court praying for their regularization which was dismissed by this Court along with other writ petitions and the petitioners have not claimed any relief for regularization. Thus, even as per own case, the petitioners are not regular appointee in the institute and are still working in the capacity of adhoc appointment or temporary employees. Thus, in the facts of the present case, we feel it appropriate that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue on the last salary paid to them in the month of May, 2013. The petitioners in future are also entitled for revision of pay alongwith dearness allowance. However, they would not be entitled for any increment in future. The respondents are further directed that the petitioners shall be paid balance of arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2013 till date. However, those petitioners who have retired during the pendency of the writ petitions they shall be paid arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2013 till the date of retirement and further they shall be given all benefits as per Rules conferred upon the persons holding ad-hoc appointment.
35. So far as the contention of the petitioners with regard to the regularization of their services are concerned, we may record that the petitioners have not claimed any relief with regard to the regularization and, therefore, we are not inclined to consider the issue of regularization of the petitioners. We leave it open for the petitioners to raise the issue of regularization in the appropriate proceedings.
36. Thus, for the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Authorised Controller, respondent no.3 is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed subject to direction given above. There shall be no order as to costs." The above orders were assailed and Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the orders of the Division Bench and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24746 of 2019 has been dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2019. Further, the petitioners and non-teaching staff i.e. Class-III and Class- IV employees have approached this Court in a bunch of writ petitions and this bunch came up before this Court for consideration on 05.02.2025. The said writ petitions was also disposed of with the following directions:- "4. It is not under much dispute that appointment of petitioners were considered to be on contractual basis and there were not entitled for regularization. However, since they were allowed to work for sufficient period, therefore, their services were protected and Court takes reference of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) which has attained finality upto the Supreme Court, though a review application is still pending on a ground that a writ petition filed by similarly situated persons in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) similar claim was earlier rejected. However, as it has been rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that both the said issues were also taken note of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.35758 of 2016, Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, which was allowed vide order dated 26.7.2022. For reference, relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter: "Considering the aforesaid facts, in the considered opinion of this Court that the judgment rendered by the earlier division bench would be now of no consequence in view of acquiescence on the part of respondents for continuation of services pertaining to the petitioner and so this Court finds that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018. Considering the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as indicated in the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018 passed in Writ-A No.37212 of 2016, Partho Protim Lahiry versus State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs."
5. In aforesaid circumstances, not only there are judgments in favour of petitioners by Division Bench of this Court which has been upheld by Supreme Court, but subsequently by Co-ordinate Bench also, therefore, this Court has no reason to take a contrary view.
6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the respondent no.3 in WRIT-A No.-40277 of 2016 and other impugned orders in other connected cases are hereby set-aside and all the writ petitions are allowed in terms of Partho Protim Lahiry (supra)." As the issue involved in all these writ petitions are already decided by this Court in the first bunch and second bunch of writ petitions, therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition and nothing needs to be decided separately though, learned counsel for the respondent sought time to file an additional affidavit and on perusal of the orders, it is clear that the impugned orders dated 01.03.2014 are already set aside by this Court in all the above said bunch of petitions, there is no need to file any supplementary affidavit. Hence, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in this Court in Writ A No.40277 of 2016 (Smt. Sarita Ahuja and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others). Order Date :- 29.4.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Shri Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shad Azaam, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that identical issue arise before this Court in the Division Bench in the bunch of the writ petitions with regard to teaching staff. After elaborate discussions the said bunch of writ petitions was disposed of with the following directions:- "32. Now the question in the case in hand is as to what relief should be granted to the petitioners to meet the end of justice. We have already held that the order impugned has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order dated 01.03.2014 is passed by Authorised Controller reducing the salary of petitioners to the level of year 1998 is quashed.
33. From the pleadings in the writ petitions it is manifest that the petitioners have not been appointed by adopting due procedure as provided under the Rules. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Rules contemplated for appointment has been followed and the petitioners have been appointed on an advertisement followed by selection by a duly constituted selection committee.
34. It is clear from the record that the petitioners have approached through their Association by means of Writ A No.54612 of 2000 before this Court praying for their regularization which was dismissed by this Court along with other writ petitions and the petitioners have not claimed any relief for regularization. Thus, even as per own case, the petitioners are not regular appointee in the institute and are still working in the capacity of adhoc appointment or temporary employees. Thus, in the facts of the present case, we feel it appropriate that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue on the last salary paid to them in the month of May, 2013. The petitioners in future are also entitled for revision of pay alongwith dearness allowance. However, they would not be entitled for any increment in future. The respondents are further directed that the petitioners shall be paid balance of arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2013 till date. However, those petitioners who have retired during the pendency of the writ petitions they shall be paid arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2013 till the date of retirement and further they shall be given all benefits as per Rules conferred upon the persons holding ad-hoc appointment.
35. So far as the contention of the petitioners with regard to the regularization of their services are concerned, we may record that the petitioners have not claimed any relief with regard to the regularization and, therefore, we are not inclined to consider the issue of regularization of the petitioners. We leave it open for the petitioners to raise the issue of regularization in the appropriate proceedings.
36. Thus, for the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Authorised Controller, respondent no.3 is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed subject to direction given above. There shall be no order as to costs." The above orders were assailed and Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the orders of the Division Bench and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24746 of 2019 has been dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2019. Further, the petitioners and non-teaching staff i.e. Class-III and Class- IV employees have approached this Court in a bunch of writ petitions and this bunch came up before this Court for consideration on 05.02.2025. The said writ petitions was also disposed of with the following directions:- "4. It is not under much dispute that appointment of petitioners were considered to be on contractual basis and there were not entitled for regularization. However, since they were allowed to work for sufficient period, therefore, their services were protected and Court takes reference of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) which has attained finality upto the Supreme Court, though a review application is still pending on a ground that a writ petition filed by similarly situated persons in Partho Protim Lahiry (supra) similar claim was earlier rejected. However, as it has been rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that both the said issues were also taken note of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.35758 of 2016, Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors, which was allowed vide order dated 26.7.2022. For reference, relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter: "Considering the aforesaid facts, in the considered opinion of this Court that the judgment rendered by the earlier division bench would be now of no consequence in view of acquiescence on the part of respondents for continuation of services pertaining to the petitioner and so this Court finds that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018. Considering the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as indicated in the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2018 passed in Writ-A No.37212 of 2016, Partho Protim Lahiry versus State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs."
5. In aforesaid circumstances, not only there are judgments in favour of petitioners by Division Bench of this Court which has been upheld by Supreme Court, but subsequently by Co-ordinate Bench also, therefore, this Court has no reason to take a contrary view.
6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the respondent no.3 in WRIT-A No.-40277 of 2016 and other impugned orders in other connected cases are hereby set-aside and all the writ petitions are allowed in terms of Partho Protim Lahiry (supra)." As the issue involved in all these writ petitions are already decided by this Court in the first bunch and second bunch of writ petitions, therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition and nothing needs to be decided separately though, learned counsel for the respondent sought time to file an additional affidavit and on perusal of the orders, it is clear that the impugned orders dated 01.03.2014 are already set aside by this Court in all the above said bunch of petitions, there is no need to file any supplementary affidavit. Hence, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in this Court in Writ A No.40277 of 2016 (Smt. Sarita Ahuja and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others). Order Date :- 29.4.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad