RAVINDRA NATH CHAUBEY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, ACJ. By means of aforesaid two appeals the petitioner employee as well as the District Judge, Ballia have challenged parts of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-1-2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54434 of 1999.

(2.) THE petitioner-employee while assailing the order of the learned District Judge dated 17-12-1999 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) had pleaded in the petition that he was appointed as a paid apprentice Clerk in the Judgeship of District Ballia as back as 11-9-1981 on ad-hoc basis. Since then he had been working in the establishment for intermittent periods till he took the competitive test for regular selection as a departmental candidate in the year 1983. He succeeded and his name appeared in the list of selected candidates notified in the result sheet. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had already approached the administrative side of this Court after he was ceased from work w. e. f. 1-9-1982 which representation after due consideration was allowed by the Court and order communicated vide letter dated 15-10-1986 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition) directing the District Judge that the representation of the petitioner was allowed as a consequence whereof he would be employed in the Judgeship as a special case. This direction of the High Court given to the District Judge, Ballia was complied with and he was given employment in pursuance thereto w. e. f. 21-10-1986. He continued working on the post of Clerk till 7-4-1987. Meanwhile a dispute of seniority of the petitioner with one A. K. Pandey arose in the establishment, which was referred to this Court which was settled on the administrative side vide order dated 25-1-1988 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition ). THE District Judge, Ballia by the aforesaid order dated 25-1-1988 was asked to place the petitioner over the name of A. K. Pandey in the gradation list of the Judgeship. This letter in fact, while treating the petitioner as senior to A. K. Pandey, crystallized his status in the establishment of Class III employees of the Judgeship which position of a regularly appointed Clerk in the establishment he enjoyed till passing of the impugned order of the respondent- District Judge. Moreover, as stated in para-8 of the writ petition, the High Court on administrative side further recognized the seniority of the petitioner in the establishment of the Judgeship when it rejected the representations of several Clerks who included Pashupati Nath and 17 others as communicated to the District Judge vide letter dated 25-8-1988 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition ). It was stated therein that those representations regarding seniority dispute with the petitioner-R. N. Chaubey had been rejected after careful consideration. In para-9 of the petition it was stated that the petitioner was confirmed on his post vide order dated 4-2-1991.

(3.) THE aforesaid petition was contested and a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent- District Judge (appellant in Special Appeal No. 151 of 2001) admitting that the petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc Clerk in the Judgeship on 15-9-1981 and served for intermittent period upto 31-8-1982. His status all through remained that of an ad-hoc employee. THE respondent however admits that the direction given vide letter dated 15-10-1986 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) was to give employment to the petitioner as a special case. It also admits that the other letters communicating the directions of the High Court on the administrative side dated 25-1-1988 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) was received but the same was presumably given because the Court was not posted with the relevant facts relating to the petitioner's employment in the Judgeship and there was no occasion for deciding any seniority dispute of the petitioner on the administrative side by the High Court. In paras 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit it is pleaded that since full and correct facts were not available with the Court and hence the said direction cannot be treated to be of any advantage to the petitioner. In para-11 of the counter affidavit, the respondent did not admit the contents of para-9 of the petition wherein it was contended that the petitioner was confirmed on his post vide order dated 4-2-1991. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was never eligible for regular appointment at any point of time during the period he served in the Judgeship and his regularization could not be done in accordance with the relevant rules. He was not entitled to any seniority and he always had the status of an employee not beyond what he was treated by the respondent-District Judge while passing the impugned order dated 17-12-1999.