Allahabad High Court
Anjani Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 20 February, 2020
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48246 of 2014 Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Basant Kumar Upadhyay,C.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri C.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.09.2012 whereby the respondent no. 2 has rejected the claim of petitioner for absorption on the basis of Government Order dated 21.08.2007.
Facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed for conducting the work of census in the year 2000. He was retrenched from his services by the orders of Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) on 31.05.2001. Both the appointment and retrenchment orders have been brought on record as annexure nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. It appears that petitioner had approached this Court earlier through Writ Petition No.5953 of 2004 and this Court on 29.09.2008 directed the respondent State to decide the claim of petitioner in accordance with law. Acting on the same, respondent no. 2 on 09.05.2009 decided the claim of petitioner and held that in case any vacancy arises and an application is made by petitioner his services will be absorbed as per Government Order dated 21.08.2007. This order was put to challenge through Writ-A No. 39319 of 2008, this Court on 10.05.2012 directed that in case petitioner makes a proper application before the appropriate authority for adjustment against an existing vacancy, the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order within three months.
It was pursuant to the said order that petitioner approached the respondent no. 2, who on 26.09.2012 decided the representation of petitioner holding that the Government Order dated 21.08.2007 was applicable for three years and it came to an end on 20.08.2010 during which no publication was made for direct recruitment on any post as claimed by petitioner, as such, the benefit of the said government order cannot be afforded to him.
Sri Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that another employee, who was appointed for census and his services were also retrenched in the year 2001, had approached this Court through Writ-A No. 30962 of 2010 and this Court on 28.01.2013 had quashed the order passed by the District Magistrate and issued direction to consider the application for absorption on group 'C' post. He further contended that as petitioner was similarly situated and the District Magistrate had, earlier, in the year 2009 while deciding his claim held that in case petitioner applies he would be given the benefit of Government Order dated 21.08.2007, thus was not correct to deny the same in the year 2012.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel relying upon the counter affidavit has submitted that the Government Order dated 21.08.2007 lapsed after a period of three years and a new notification was issued on 27.08.2009 whereby the retrenched employees were not entitled for absorption in the State Government.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the services of petitioner were taken only for the census work in the year 2000 and same came to an end in the year 2001 when the census was completed. However, the State Government has come out with a government order on 21.08.2007 for absorbing those temporary employees, who had worked in the census department in the year 1991 and 2000-01. The said government order in clause IV provided that the same was applicable only for three years. The District Magistrate while rejecting the claim of petitioner held that the government order of the year 2007 came to an end on 29.08.2010 and during this interregnum period no advertisement was made for appointing any person on group 'C' or 'D' posts, as such, the claim of petitioner cannot be considered.
The finding recorded by the District Magistrate has not been assailed in the present writ petition nor any averment has been made that any appointment was made during the said period by the State Government. Further, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioner upon the order of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 30962 of 2010 relates to absorption on the post of Junior Clerk in pursuance of Government Order dated 09.10.2007 which was rejected on the ground that there was a ban for appointment on group 'C' posts. While present petition has been filed seeking absorption in pursuance to the Government Order dated 21.08.2007, thus, both the cases are distinguishable and the benefit claimed in pursuance of order passed by this Court on 28.01.2013 cannot be extended to the present petitioner as in the present case there is specific finding recorded by the District Magistrate that no appointments were made in between 21.08.2007 and 20.08.2010 and this finding having not been challenged in the writ petition, no interference is required by this Court.
Writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date :- 20.2.2020 Shekhar