JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 8.4.1988 published on 16.5.1988 by the labour court. Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which the reference made by State Government was decided against petitioner.
2. The facts borne out from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as First Aid Khalasi in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, on 18.12,1951 and was promoted as Meter Reader with effect from 6.12.1954.
3. By order dated 21.7.1972, the petitioner was allowed to work as Pipe Line Inspector in addition to his work on substantive post of Meter Reader on the condition that he shall not be paid any additional salary or allowance till any order of exemption from the basic qualification was received from the Commissioner. This order was for three months or till the appointment as per rules is made whichever was earlier.
4. The Commissioner by order dated 7.3.1973 granted exemption of basic qualification as required under U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Services (Designations, Scales of Pay Qualifications, Conveyance, Allowance and Method of Recruitment) Order 1963 under Rule 8 (2) of the order aforesaid for payment of additional amount for additional work as Pipe Line Inspector. The Commissioner further directed to make permanent appointment.
5. After receiving the order of Commissioner, the petitioner who was working on temporary basis, was paid salary In the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 of Pipe Line Inspector and was also given l/5th salary of the Meter Reader In addition to said salary. He was reverted by order dated 16.7.1973.
6. A dispute was raised by the petitioner against his reversion initially before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal and subsequently before labour authorities. The State of U. P. of made following reference to labour court :
"Whether the order of reversion from the post of Pipe Line Inspector to the post of Meter Reader was legal. If not, what compensation he is entitled?"
7. As stated above, the labour court decided reference against petitioner. The labour court recorded finding that the reversion of the petitioner by order dated 16.7.1973, was in accordance with law. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that Harihar Prasad was not having basic qualification for the post and was not granted exemption.
8. Sri A. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, the petitioner was granted exemption from basic qualification arid is entitled to be treated as substantive promotion. Findings recorded to the contrary are liable to be set aside. He urged that the reversion order was not passed in accordance with law. He referred Annexures-1 and 3 to the supplementary-affidavit to show that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Pipe Line Inspector was made in accordance with law and Commissioner has granted exemption for the said post and he was rightly paid salary in the pay scale of Pipe Line Inspector. He also urged that Rule 31 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 and further urged that the impugned order is discriminatory Inasmuch as juniors to petitioner, were promoted and allowed to continue as Pipe Line Inspector.
9. Sri P. N. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Jal Sansthan, Varanasi, In reply to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was never selected or approved for promotion on substantive basis. He did not have basic qualification. He was initially appointed for 3 months under Section 108 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. No temporary appointee could continue beyond one year as such he was rightly reverted within one year by order dated 16.7.1973. He urged that exemption was granted for payment of salary for his work as Pipe Line Inspector in addition to work as Meter Reader for the period he worked. Sri P. N. Srivastava produced original service record as directed by the order dated 2.8.2002.
10. I considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of appointment dated 21.7.1972, which is S.A.-l to supplementary- affidavit. By this order, Nagar Abhiyanta, Jal Kal directed petitioner to discharge the work of Pipe Line Inspector in addition to his substantive work of Meter Reader for three months. He requested concerned Commissioner to grant exemption from the basic qualification In order to pay salary for said work.
12. From the perusal of the order dated 7.3.1973, which is S.A.-2 to supplementary-affidavit, passed by Commissioner, it is clear that for the purpose of payment of salary for doing work as Pipe Line Inspector, the Commissioner passed an order for exemption. It was further mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said order that the proceedings be started for permanent recruitment in accordance with rules.
13. Order dated 14.3.1973, also makes it clear that the petitioner was provided allowances for discharging function as Pipe Line Inspector in addition to his work as Meter Reader and was given minimum pay in the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 of Pipe Line Inspector and in addition to that l/5th of pay of Meter Reader as allowances was also given.
14. The petitioner was not given permanent appointment and was reverted by the order dated 16.7.1973.
15. On raising industrial dispute, the labour court rejected the claim of petitioner by the award dated 16.5.1988. Labour court has recorded finding that the order of reversion was rightly passed. He was not having basic qualification and was not appointed after exemption on regular basis.
16. Section 108 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, is relevant and is being quoted below :
"108. Officiating and temporary appointments to certain posts.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 107 officiating and temporary appointments to posts mentioned in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the said section may be made by the appointing authorities specified in those Sub-sections without consulting the State Public Service Commission or obtaining the recommendation of the selection committee, but no such appointment shall continue beyond the period of one year, nor shall be made where it is expected to last for more than a year, without consulting the State Public Service Commission or otherwise than In accordance with the recommendation of the selection committee, as the case may be."
17. Admittedly, the petitioner was given temporary appointment and temporary appointment cannot continue beyond one year under Section 108, Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. He was allowed to work on the post of Pipe Line Inspector from 21.7.1972 and after granting exemption, he was rightly provided the minimum pay scale of Pipe Line Inspector plus l/5th of salary of Meter Reader in addition to that for doing additional work of the Meter Reader. He was rightly reverted on 16.7.1973, within one year. No appointment of the petitioner was made on regular or permanent basis after exemption was granted by the Commissioner on 7.3.1973. The order of Commissioner further makes it clear that it was for the payment of salary for temporary work on the post of Pipe Line Inspector which was discharged by petitioner in addition to his work of Meter Reader. No appointment order of officiating or temporary basis could be made beyond one year. Thus, the petitioner was rightly reverted within one year. There is no perversity or illegality in the finding of labour court. I agree with the same.
18. Second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is also equally untenable Inasmuch as the appointment of two persons, who according to petitioner, were juniors to him in the cadre of Meter Reader was made after reversion of petitioner in accordance with law. According to the petitioner himself, they were never given temporary appointment along with petitioner and were not allowed to work ignoring the petitioner. Case of these Junior employees are not similarly situated with the petitioner. They got substantive appointment in 1974. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner of discrimination cannot be sustained in law.
19. The third argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of reversion is violative to Rule 31 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapallka Sewa Nlyamawali, 1962, also cannot be entertained inasmuch as Rule 31 of the Rules aforesaid is applicable to the disciplinary proceedings and are not applicable to reversion of a temporary or an officiating employee In Nagar Mahapallka.
20. With the result, I am of the view that the award of Tribunal was rightly made in accordance with law. There is no error of law apparent on the face of record. Finding does not suffer from any infirmity and is supported by materials on record and from the original record produced by learned counsel appearing for Nagar Mahapalika.
21. With the result writ petition fails and is dismissed.
22. No order as to cost.