Allahabad High Court
Shailesh Kumar Singh And 90 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 5 February, 2020
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33409 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Singh And 90 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Clause-2-1 (b) of the impugned circular dated 19.4.2016 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Karmik), Police Headquarters, Allahabad with the further request to treat the petitioners to have completed their training prior to cancellation of their appointments so as to enable the authorities concerned to grant them full benefit as per Clause-1 of the circular dated 19.4.2016.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioners were selected and were granted appointment on the post of Constables on 2.9.2006. After the appointment, they were required to undergo a training for a period of 9 months. They completed the said training but further stipulation that after completion of training, they have to appear in the passing parade and thereafter, their entitlement came into existence for posting at different places was not completed.
4. Under the government order issued by the State Government on 19.9.2007 as well as other government orders issued thereafter, the appointments on the post of Constables came to be cancelled, which were made in between 2005-06. The cancellation of the appointment on the post of Constable came to be challenged before this Court in large number of writ petitions. One of the writ petitions filed by one Pawan Kumar Singh was made leading writ petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.45645 of 2007). The writ petition was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 8.12.2008, against which, special appeal was filed by the State, which was dismissed and against the said judgment, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.
5. In pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners were reinstated in service on 25.5.2019 along with other Constables. Thereafter, they approached to the respondents for payment of arrears of salary and for regularization of the period of their service as well as for grant of increment and other benefits for the purpose of fixation of pay scale etc. The State Government passed an order on 21.1.2016, whereby decision has been taken that all those Constables whose service has been dispensed with and later on they were reinstated back in service, will not be given arrears of their salary on the ground of principles of no work no pay, but from the period of appointment and period of reinstatement for the fixation of salary and grant of increment. In compliance of the order, a circular has been issued on 19.4.2016 by the Superintendent of Police (Karmik), Police Headquarters, Allahabad, whereby certain conditions have been mentioned which are contrary to the claim setup by the petitioners.
6. Challenging the conditions of the circular, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the similar controversy was considered by this Court in Writ-A No.24834 of 2018 and this Court on consideration of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.16355 of 2017, has decided the issue by issuing direction vide judgment and order dated 8.1.2020. He submits that the petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefit, as has been provided by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order dated 8.1.2020 passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
8. I have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. This Court, while considering the similar controversy in Writ-A No.24834 of 2018 along with other connected writ petitions, has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in Civil Appeal No.16355 of 2017. Relevant portion of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is quoted below :-
"At the very outset, the counsel for the parties have placed the judgement passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.16355/2017 (Deepak Kumar and others vs. Principal Secretary Home, Government of U.P. at Lucknow and others) alongwith connected Civil Appeal no.16356/2017, 16357/2017 and 16358/2017. In the said appeals, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) no.707/2015. The said Civil Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2017 in following terms:-
"5. The State of U.P. has filed a detailed additional affidavit in response to the order extracted above. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to refer to the stand of the State except to take note of the fact that the case has a chequered history. Despite the liberty granted by the High Court to weed out the allegedly tainted candidates, it appears that no such exercise was undertaken and all of them have been taken back into service. That liberty was granted by the Division Bench of the High Court in the order dated 04.03.2009. The reinstatement was made on 27.05.2009. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State that if at all, any exercise could have been done by the State, it would have been only pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2009. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that the High Court, in the original jurisdiction, having held that the termination was otherwise illegal, the only corollary to the declaration is that the appellants should be deemed to be 'in service' for all purposes.
6. Having regard to the background of the allegations pursuant to which the termination was effected, we are of the view that the State, having resolved to take back all employees into service without further inquiry, has itself shown sufficient grace to the appellants. The respondents, having acted within three months from the final order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find that the tentative view taken by this Court in the order dated 17.08.2017 needs to be revisited.
7. Having said that, in case these appeals are dismissed, there would still be scope for further litigation between the parties in view of the liberty granted by the High Court in the impugned order. The learned senior counsel appearing on both sides have submitted that there should not be any further litigation on this count.
8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met in case the appellants before this Court are granted litigation expenses, which would be in full and final settlement of all their claims, which they have been pursuing before the High Court. This benefit will be available only to those Constables who have chosen to pursue their grievance before this Court upto 17.08.2017, when this Court passed the order referred to in Paragraph 4 above. The litigation expenses are quantified to Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand). This amount shall be paid to each of those Constables covered by this order on or before 20.12.2017. It is made clear that in case the appellants are not paid the above amount within the stipulated time, they shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% from the date of termination.
9. We also make it clear that this Judgment is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and this benefit shall not be available to any other similarly situated employee(s) who had been reinstated pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2009 passed by the High Court.
10. Since the entire litigation has been given a quietus, we make it clear that for all other purposes, the Constables concerned who had been terminated in 2006-2007, will be treated to be 'in continuous service' except for the Assured Career Progression (ACP), for which the actual service, when they discharged the duties, will be counted.
11. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of."
In the present matter, the petitioners, who are working in disciplined force as Constables, have been reinstated in services vide order dated 27.05.2009 within a week's time. Now it has been alleged that the respondents had not accorded annual increment since 2006-07 to the petitioners and their salary had not been calculated accordingly.
So far as the relief as has been asked for, the same is unacceptable in view of the judgement and order dated 10.10.2017, whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly directed that the Constable concerned would be treated in continuous service since the very beginning. At the same time, it has been clarified that they would not be entitled for Assured Career Progression (ACP), for which the actual service, when they discharged the duties, will be counted.
On the other hand, Shri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel informed to the Court that so far as the litigation charges of Rs.35,000/- is concerned, the same has been paid to those incumbents, who have approached to Hon'ble the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) and as far as annual increment and A.C.P. benefits are concerned, the same would be extended by the Department after counting the actual services of the petitioners in pursuance to order dated 27.05.2009, which would be a decisive date subject to their joining for reckoning the period of their actual services.
The said situation/assurance has been accepted by counsel for the parties but at the same time, it has been informed that while the controversy was pending consideration before this Court as well as before the Apex Court, various conflicting circulars have been issued in the matter.
Consequently, the present writ petition as well as the other six petitions as aforementioned are being disposed of in terms of the assurance so made by learned Standing Counsel. It is made clear that any circular issued after 10.10.2017 contrary to the mandate of Hon'ble the Apex Court would be a nullity."
10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also disposed of in same terms and with the same direction, as contained in the judgment and order dated 8.1.2020, passed in Writ-A No.24834 of 2018.
Order Date :- 5.2.2020 Gautam