B K MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. P. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) IN view of the exchange of affidavits the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission in accordance with the Rules of the Court.

(3.) ON perusal of the representation we do not find that the petitioner has raised any specific case for relaxation of conditions of service as contemplated under Rule 18 though he claims his appointment by promotion as aforesaid when especially the juniors to him have been promoted, that is to say, that the persons who have been appointed after 1970 batch. Rule 18 aforsaid empowers that where the Government is satisfied that the operation of any Rule regulat ing the conditions of service of persons appointed to the service causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may in consultation with the Commission by order dispense with or relax the requirement of that Rule, to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. So far as Rule 5 (ii) is concerned it provides that a permanent Excise Inspector who has put in at least fifteen years of service on the first day, of July of the year in which the vacancy has occurred could be eligible. The representation of the petitioner was rejected as by the said provisions since he has actually not worked 15 years taking it the year as 1977 the year when the dispute was resolved and petitioner along-with other was appointed with effect from 1977, hence his claim was rejected. While rejecting the said claim no consideration was made pertaining to Rule 18 of the said Rules. In view of this, we feel that on the facts and circumstances of this case and also looking to the hardships of the petitioner the Government should consider the claim of the petitioner afresh under Rule 18 of the said Rules on the facts and circumstances of this case, in case the petitioner makes a fresh representation in this regard before respondent No. 1 within one month and the said authority will preferably decide the same within eight weeks from the date of filing the certified copy of this order before him. Respondent No. 1 is further directed to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate speaking order on the said representation in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1 will consider this in the light of the petitioner's claim of his being entitled for being promoted from the year 1989 on the post of Assistant Excise Commissioner.