BUDHA SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners' case is that they were appointed as Lekhpals on 14-7-1959 and 9-9-1960 respectively. THEreafter they were promoted on officiating basis as Consolidators on 4-12-1970. THEy joined their duties as Consolidators on 8-1-1971.

(2.) THE petitioners' trouble has started from June, 1975. On 28-6-1975 the petitioners were reverted as Lekhpals and in pursuance of the said order, the order dated 13-7-1975 came to be issued. In fact the basis of their reversion was that they were promoted after 27-11-1970. It may be mentioned that all the Lekhpals, who were promoted till 27-11-1970 were to be retained and anybody appointed after that date was reverted. Against the order of reversion the petitioners seem to have filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act of 1976 came into force. Pending petition before the High Court in respect of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the said Act abated and the petitioners filed a fresh petition before the Tribunals, which was constituted in the meantime. THE Tribunal dismissed the fresh petition of the petitioners on 28-2-1979. THE petitioners challenge this order also. In this manner the petitioners challenge three orders dated 28-6-1975, 13-7-1975 and 28-2-1979.

(3.) IT is borne out from the record that petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Lekhpal on 14-7-1959 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed on 9-9-1960 to the said post. Their date of appointment to Lekhpal is prior to that of respondents no. 5 to 11. Therefore, the petitioners would be senior to respondents no. 5 to 11 as Lekhpal. The respondents no. 5 to 11 seem to have been promoted on officiating basis as consolidator earlier but that would not make them senior to the petitioners as Lekhpal. Seniority in the substantive grade was the basis of their retention as consolidator. In the substantive grade the petitioners are senior on the basis of their date of appointment as Lekhpal. Therefore, respondents no. 5 to 11 cannot be said to be senior to the petitioner in the substantive grade. While retaining respondents no. 5 to II the petitioners could not be reverted because as Lekhpal they were senior to the said respondents. From the record it is also borne out that the petitioners are shown in the gradation list senior to Consolidators to the respondents no. 5 to 11. The position of the petitioners shown in the seniority list appears to be correct and they would be deemed senior to the respondents which in fact shows that they are senior as Consolidator also. The seniority in the present case shall have to be determined from the date of their initial appointment as Lekhpal because from Lekhpal they were promoted on officiating basis as Consolidator Therefore, it was the seniority in the substantive grade which will determine the rights of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents no. 5 to 11. The gradation list in the present case has removed the difficulty and made it abundantly clear that the petitioners were treated as senior consolidators to respondents no. 5 to 11. Therefore, the petitioners could not be reverted when respondents no. 5 to 11 were retained as consolidator. This action violative of the petitioners' right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.