DURG VIJAY YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent no.6 who are senior assistants in the office of Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Mau, are at loggerheads with regard to distribution of work made by the higher authorities. Both of them want to work as cashier. This has given rise to successive bouts of litigation between them. Indisputably, respondent no. 6 was working as cashier. By order dated 15/10/2013, he was transferred. By another order of the even date, respondent no. 6 was directed to handover the charge of Divisional Cashier to the petitioner. Subsequently, by order dated 25/10/2013, transfer of respondent no. 6 was cancelled. However, he was not given the charge of Divisional Cashier. This led to filing of writ petition no. 9432 of 2014 by respondent no.6, which was disposed of with direction to the Engineer in Chief (MU-2), U.P., PWD, Lucknow to consider the claim of respondent no.6 and pass appropriate orders within three months. In pursuance thereof, the respondent no. 3 passed order dated 7/3/2014 holding that the respondent no.6 is much senior to the petitioner and as per Office Memorandum No. 1066 O;x/818 O;x/98 dated 22/2/2013, the work of cashier is required to be taken from person who is senior-most. Respondent no.5 was directed to pass orders accordingly. The aforesaid order dated 7/3/2014 was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition.22599 of 2014 on the ground that in earlier writ petition filed by respondent no.6, a direction, to decide the controversy, was given to the Engineer-in-Chief (Mu-2), U.P., Public Works Department, Lucknow. However, respondent no.3 had decided the controversy and had directed the Executive Engineer to pass consequential orders, which is wholly illegal and amounts to violation of the direction given by this Court in writ petition no.9432 of 2014.

(2.) It seems that there is no post of Engineer-in-Chief (Mu-2), U.P., Public Works Department, Lucknow and the confusion arose because respondent no.6 in the array of parties had shown Engineer-in-Chief (Mu-2), U.P., Public Works Department, Lucknow as respondent no.2, in writ petition filed by him. The said writ petition was disposed of at the very initial stage, directing respondent no.2 to take decision in the matter. In such circumstances, the judgement of this Court dated 21/4/2014 was interpreted by respondent no. 3 as direction by this Court, to decide the dispute itself instead of directing respondent no. 5 to take decision in the matter, as was done in the past, by order dated 7.3.2014. Accordingly, respondent no.3 passed order dated 19/5/2014, in which it was held that according to the Office Memorandum no. 1066 O;x/818 O;x/98 dated 22/2/2013, which requires that the senior person should normally be allotted the work of cashier, such responsibility should be cast upon respondent no. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that respondent no.3 had committed gross contempt of the judgment dated 21/4/2014, which required the Engineer-in-Chief (Mu-2), U.P., Public Works Department, Lucknow to decide the controversy. It is contended that the earlier order passed by respondent no.3 dated 7/3/2014 was set aside on the ground that such decision should have been taken by respondent no.2 and thus, respondent no.3 is repeatedly violating the directions of this Court.

(3.) On writ petition being presented, the State-respondents took time to obtain instructions in the matter. It seems that thereafter respondent no.2, Engineer-in-Chief, U.P. Public Works Department, Lucknow was advised to take decision in the matter in purported compliance of the direction given by this Court in its judgement dated 13/2/2014 passed in writ petition no. 9432 of 2014 and writ petition no. 22599 of 2014. Accordingly, respondent no.2 passed order dated 3/7/2014, in which he concurred with the view taken by respondent no.3 and had held that respondent no.6, being senior to the petitioner is entitled to work as cashier. The said order has also been subjected to challenge by filing amendment application, which was allowed.