PEER MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk Grade II in the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad on 10 -9 -1968. Thereafter by order dated 14 -9 -1988 the petitioner was promoted as Accounts Clerk, which promotion, according to the petitioner, was granted after the petitioner had faced a duly constituted Selection Committee. By order dated 14 -10 -1992, according to the petitioner, his designation was changed from Accounts Clerk to Revenue Inspector in the same pay scale. A perusal of the said order dated 14 -10 -1992 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) shows that on administrative exigencies, an arrangement was made, permitting the petitioner to work as Revenue Inspector. By another order dated 27 -10 -1993 passed on an application made by the petitioner to the Nagar Nigam, a direction was issued by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad that his name be included in the seniority list of Revenue Inspectors, in accordance with the Rules. A further stipulation was made in the said order that the same shall be subject to the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4656 of 1980, Nagar Mahapalika Karmachari Sangh & Ors. v. State of U.P. It has been further contended that thereafter on 30th June, 1995 the respondent -Nagar Nigam, Allahabad wrote to the Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow that promotions made to the post of Revenue Inspectors and Head Clerks vide order dated 24 -12 -1992 were done after the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The petitioner thus urged that since under Rule 7 of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, 1966 it has been provided that if no orders to the contrary are passed by the Government before expiry of 180 days, the officers or servants shall be deemed to be finally absorbed in the cadre to which they have been promoted. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that after the expiry of 180 days of the issuance of the letter dated 30th June, 1995 since no order has been passed, the petitioner would be deemed to have been absorbed as Revenue Inspector.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 20 -11 -2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner has been reverted back to his original post of Accounts Clerk on the ground that it was only as an administrative arrangement that work of Revenue Inspector was being taken from the petitioner vide order dated 14 -10 -1992 and that the inclusion of his name in the list of Revenue Inspectors vide order dated 27 -10 -1993 had been made subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 4656 of 1980, and the same having been dismissed by this Court on 28 -8 -1995 and the stay order having been vacated, consequently the petitioner was to be reverted back to his original post of Accounts Clerk.

(3.) I have heard Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at length and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder -affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.