Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Singh Verma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 July, 2021
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4997 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, the learned Additional Advocate General who appears for the State respondents.
The petitioner, an Assistant Conservator of Forests, has challenged an order of 01 March 2021 pursuant to which the additional charge which was accorded to him to function as the Divisional Forest Officer, Etawah, has been taken away and granted to one Sri Sanjay Singh. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the additional charge has been granted to an officer who is many ranks junior to the petitioner.
The Court however notes that the order of 01 March 2021 was stated to have been made in administrative exigencies and appears to be a pro tem arrangement made by the respondents. The vacancy at Etawah appears to have arisen consequent to the superannuation of one Sri Satyapal. Undisputedly the principal lien of the petitioner was as Forest Divisional Officer, Obra in Sonbhadra. Both the petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay Singh were only directed to additionally hold charge and discharge functions of the Divisional Forest Officer, Etawah.
The counter affidavit further indicates that by a subsequent order of 05 July 2021 one Sri Atul Kant Shukla has now been handed over ad hoc charge of Divisional Forest Officer, Etawah. In any case the Court notes that the series of orders issued by the State Government referred to above, have only made by way of an ad hoc arrangement temporarily granting additional charge to the officers noted above as well as the petitioner here.
The Court finds no indefeasible right inhering in the petitioner to continue to be posted or accorded additional charge of Etawah. This and other steps which have been taken by the State Government are principally directed by administrative exigencies which would not warrant interference by the Court. More fundamentally the Court fails to recognise any right vested in the petitioner to command the respondents to accord him additional charge of Etawah. An officer or employee cannot claim a right to be conferred additional charge or seek enforcement of such a claim by way of a prerogative writ.
Additionally, the Court notes that the respondents concede that the principal lien of the petitioner remains at Obra Forest Division in District Sonbhadra and that it is on that post that he shall now continue to function. In fact the Court was apprised that the salary of the petitioner continued to be borne by the establishment of the respondents at Sonbhadra. There is thus no prejudice which stands caused to the petitioner.
Insofar as the issue of penal rent is concerned, it must be noted that even after the petitioner had been divested of charge, he continued to occupy the official accommodation allotted to him at Etawah. There was no justification for the petitioner having continued to retain possession of those premises once his posting at Etawah came to an end. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order made by the respondents requiring deposit of penal rent.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Vivek Kr.