1. Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Kuldip Mani Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. In the abovementioned writ petitions in question, as common question of law has been engaging the attention of this Court, the writ petitions are being decided collectively and Writ Petition No.8632 (SS) of 2010 is being treated to be leading case.
3. The present writ petition has been filed before this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant notional promotion on the post of Cooperative Supervisor Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer Cooperative with effect from the date juniors to the petitioner have been promoted with all consequential benefits.
4. Facts of Writ Petition No.8632 of 2010 (Rajveer Sharma v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 25.3.1977 and was confirmed on the said post on 1.1.1988 and in the gradation list, his name finds place at 45/77. It is case of the petitioner that the persons junior to the petitioner from serial no.48 onwards have been granted promotion on the post of Cooperative Supervisor Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer, Cooperative. The petitioner was placed in the seniority list at serial no.57 vide seniority list dated 30.09.2003 and accordingly he was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Development Officer, Cooperative on 30.9.2003 and retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2010. On the basis of certain judgments relied upon, he is claiming notional promotion on the post of A.D.O., Cooperative with effect from the date juniors have been granted promotion for the purpose of accounting qualifying service for the payment of pension. Under the Rules, it is provided that for the payment of pension to a government servant, required qualifying service is 10 years. The petitioner admittedly was granted promotion on the post of A.D.O., Cooperative on 30.9.2003 and retired on 31.3.2010, therefore, he does not have 10 years of qualifying service required under Regulation 361.
5. Facts of Writ Petition No.6378 (SS) of 2011 (Ram Gopal Verma v. The State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was absorbed under Managing Director, U.P. Provincial Cooperative Union Limited, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow on the post of Cooperative Supervisor whose date of initial appointment was 13.9.1970 and his service were made confirmed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor subsequently. Order was passed by Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow granting promotion to petitioner to the post of Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative)/ Cooperative Inspector Group-II. In pursuance thereof, he joined on the promoted post and was allowed to continue as such. Judgment and order was passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4527 (SS) of 2009 for grant of notional promotion to the similarly situated and even junior person to the petitioner namely Sri Shyam Manohal Lal Srivastava to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Offficer (Cooperative) with effect from the date of promotion of junior person with the direction to fix his pension w.e.f. 18.04.1990. Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow issued order complying the abovementioned judgment 31.7.2009. The petitioner made representation before Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow thereby making request to the effect that the petitioner may also be granted notional promotion to the post of Cooperative Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) with effect from 18.04.1990 as it has been given to above named Sri Shyam Manohar Lal Srivastava keeping in view the fact that the prsons who were granted promotion on 18.04.1990 are junior to the petitioner also and the petitioner was also superseded in the matter of grant of promotion without any reason or justification but the same could not come within the know of the petitioner and it was only in the month of March, 2010 when order dated 11.03.2010 was passed in compliance of order dated 31.07.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4527 (SS) of 2009, the petitioner has got knowledge about the promotion granted to the junior prsons. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2010 while working on the post of Cooperative Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and respondents have fixed the pension of petitioner w.e.f. 4.3.1995 thereby reckoning the length of petitioner's services on the post of Cooperative Officer (Cooperative) as 15 years 4 months and 28 days only. When no order has been passed on the representation, he filed the present writ petition.
6. Facts of Writ Petition No.2695 of 2014 (Briddhi Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor. He was placed under suspension in relation to the charge of alleged financial irregularities and embezzlement. In this regard, an FIR was also lodged against him under Sections 409/467/471/477 in which criminal case no.82/83 was registered against him. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and in furtherence of the same he was dismissed from service vide order dated 29.11.1985 against which he filed departmental appeal but the same was also rejected vide order dated 30.07.1987 and as such the petitioner filed Writ Petiton No.6212 of 1987 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1993 whereby order dated 29.11.1985 dismissing the petitioner from service as well as order dated 30.07.1987 rejecting the appeal of petitioner filed against the dismissal order were quashed and petitioner was directed to be deemed continuing in service with liberty to respondents to hold further proceedings on the basis of charge sheet in accordance with law within the stipulated period as per direction of this Court, but department filed S.L.P. No.14002/1993 against the judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. The petitioner was reinstated in service in compliance of judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 and he was treated to be in continuous service and he was paid entire arrears of salary excluding the amount of subsistence allowance already paid to him. Moreover the respondents did not proceed further with the departmental proceeding after reinstatement of petitioner. Additional Commissioner/ Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow issued order dated 22.5.1995 thereby granting promotion to the post of Cooperative Officer (Cooperative) to 101 persons including the persons juniors to the petitioner on temporary and ad hoc basis but the petitioner was not granted promotion and as such petitioner filed Writ Petition No.397 (SS) of 1998 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 6.2.1998 giving liberty to petitioner to make a representation to the authority concerned with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the said representation within a period of three months in accordance with law by a speaking order. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner made representation to Additional Commissioner/ Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow. Additional Commissioner/ Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow issued order on 20.7.1999 granting promotion to petitioner to the post in question on ad hoc basis thereby directing the petitioner to submit his joining report within a period of one month and also issued another letter no.1434 dated 20.07.1999 on the same day disposing of petitioner's representation. The petitioner submitted his joining report on 30.7.1999 in pursuance of said promotion order dated 20.7.1999 and since then, he was allowed to work on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Additional Commissioner/ Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow issued an order on 30.9.2003 regularizing the promotion of petitioner as well as junior persons. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.01.2012 while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Additional Commissioner/ Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow issued an order on 21.1.2013 thereby allotting the year of vacancies to the concerned Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) who were granted promotion on previous occasions from the year 1989 to 2001 and the regularization order dated 30.09.2003 was deemed to be amended accordingly but by means of the order dated 21.01.2013 the petitioner has been regularized against the vacancy of the year 1997-98 whereas the junior persons have been regularized against the vacancies of previous years i.e. 1992-93 onward. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner made representation to Additional Commissioner/ Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow for issuing order of notional promotion on the post in question against the vacancy of the year 1992-93 w.e.f. 1.7.1992 for being granted regular promotion against the vacancy of the year 1992-93 since when a person junior to him has been firstly regularized keeping in view the criteria for promotion to the post in question i.e. seniority subject to rejection of unfit under the relevant Service Rules, 1979 and as such the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post in question prior to a date of promotion of a person junior to him and in continuation of the same the petitioner has vehementaly represented his case through various representations. When no order has been passed on it, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
7. Facts of Writ Petition No.3037 (SS) of 2011 (Naresh Chandra Sharma v. The State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 8.1.1958 and his services were confirmed on 30.4.1972. The Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow issued order on 9.5.1985 whereby petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). On 27.5.1985, the petitioner submitted his joining report on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II and he was allowed to work on the promoted post. He retired while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.1994. However, the petitioner has not been paid pensionary benefits under Government Order dated 1.7.1989 on the ground that the length of petitioner's service on the said post is only 9 years and 4 months which is below ten years. This Court vide order dated 3.5.1995 was pleased to pass judgment and order in Writ Petition No.13240 of 1989 directing respondents to treat the writ petitioners who are similarly situated persons than the present petitioner as having been notional promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II from the date of promotion of junior person i.e. 7.4.1978 for the purposes of pensionary benefits keeping in view the fact that vide orders dated7.4.1978 and 22.7.1978 promotion was granted to several Cooperative Supervisors to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II thereby superseding the Senior Cooperative Supervisors depriving them from promotion though they were eligible for grant of promotion on the date of issuance of promotion orders. Respondent no.3 issued an order on 21.5.1996 in compliance of the abovementioned judgment and order dated 3.5.1995 whereby persons namely Bengali Prasad Sharma and others were granted pensionary benefits by giving notional promotion when juniors were promoted. The judgment and order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition on 4419 (SS) of 1996 filed by other similar situated retired Cooperative Inspectors Group-II whereby a writ of mandamus was also issued to respondents to give notional promotion with effect from 7.4.1978 when juniors were promoted and the respondents were directed to fix their pension w.e.f. 7.4.1978 with the condition that the writ petitioners will not be entitled for any arrears of salary. Respondent no.3 issued order on 11.11.1999 in compliance of the abovementioned judgment and order dated 11.5.1999 and granted benefit of notional promotion to petitioners of Writ Petition No.4419 (SS) of 1996 to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II w.e.f. 7.4.1978 and accordingly they were granted pensionary benefits. The State Government has also issued a Government Order giving directions for considering the claim of similarly situated persons. Another Government Order was issued on 14.2.2002 in super-session of the above mentioned Government Order dated 8.6.2000 for consideration of the similar cases on merit and the benefit of judgment and order dated 3.5.1995 passed in W.P. No.13240 of 1990 and order dated 11.5.1999 passed in W.P. No.4419 (SS) of 1996 has been made available to several retired Cooperative Inspectors thereby granting notional promotion for the purposes of pensionary benefits with effect from the date of promotion of person junior to them w.e.f. 7.4.1978. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2007 was pleased to pass judgment and order for making available the benefit of judgment and orders dated 3.5.1995 passed in W.P. No.13240 of 1995 and order dated 11.5.1999 passed in W.P. No.4419 (SS) of 1996 to another similarly situated retired Cooperative Inspector namely Sri Somesh Chandra Pandey in W.P. No.1771(SS) of 1996 thereby granting benefits w.e.f. the date of promotion of person junior i.e. 7.4.1978. This Court vide another order dated 9.10.2009, was pleased to pass another judgment and order in W.P. No.275 (SB) of 2007 namely Siddhi Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. and others for giving benefit of notional promotion with effect from the date of junior person for the purposes of pensionary benefits to a retired similarly situated Cooperative Inspector Group-II. Respondent no.3 passed an order on 25.1.2010 in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9.10.2009 granting similar benefits to above-named Sri Siddhi Nath Shukla. The petitioner being similarly situated person made representation before respondent no.3 for giving benefit of the aforesaid judgments and orders. When no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
8. Facts of Writ Petition No.2923 (SS) of 2015 (Amar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner joined on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 1.3.1978. He was granted promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 1.10.1993 initially for the period of 89 days. The term was extended from time to time and petitioner was allowed to continue upto 31.3.1998 with on day artificial break i.e. 3.1.1994. On 1.4.1998 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Co-operative Supervisor due to the reason of non-extension of his term of promotion. Respondent no.3 issued an order on 16.11.2012 granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) in pursuance of which he joined on 17.11.2012 and was allowed to continue. The petitioner made representation on 20.11.2012 to respondent no.3 claiming notional promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) w.e.f. 1.3.1989 i.e. the date since when a person junior to the petitioner was granted promotion which was not decided. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.12.2012 while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative), but he has not been granted pensionary benefits till the date. In this regard, he made another representation dated 3.2.2015 which is still pending consideration. When no order has been passed, he has filed the present writ petition.
9. Facts of Writ Petition No.1780 (SS) of 2015 (Purshottam Sharma v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner joined service on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 22.2.1978. He was granted promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 28.12.1988 initially for a period of 90 days. The term was extended from time to time and he was allowed to continue upto 19.08.1988 with one day artificial break created after every interval of one year, three months or 80 days as the case may be depending upon the term of promotion indicated in each promotion orders. The petitioner was reverted to the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 20.8.1998. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31478 of 1998 in which although the respondents were directed to file counter afffidavit, yet no interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner worked on the post of Cooperative Supervisor w.e.f. 20.8.1998. Respondent no.3 issued an order 16.11.2012 granting promotion to petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative)during the pendency of the writ petition and in pursuance thereof, he joined w.e.f. 18.11.2012 and was allowed to continue. The petitioner made representation on 19.11.2002 to respondent no.3 claiming for notional promotion. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31478 of 1998 was dismissed as infructuous vide judgment and order dated 7.4.20014. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service while working on the post Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 30.6.2014, but he has not been granted pensionary benefits till date. In this regard, the petitioner made representation before respondent no.3 on 19.8.2014 but till date no order whatsoever has been filed. When no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
10. Facts of Writ Petition No.1242 (SS) of 2012 (Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was absorbed on 1.1.1977 under respondent no.6 on the post of Cooperative Supervisor whose date of initial appointment was 20.04.1971 and his services were made confirmed on the said post subsequently. Respondent no.4 passed an order on 3.7.1993 granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) for a period of 89 days in pursuance of which he joined the said post. Respondent no.4 passed another order on 30.9.1993 granting promotion to the petitioner for next 89 days. The term was further extended for 89 days. Thereafter, he was converted to the post of Cooperative Supervisor. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition which was number as Writ Petition No.1604 (SS) of1994 wherein this Court vide order dated 7.4.1994 was pleased to pass an interim order for allowing the petitioner to continue on the post in question. In pursuance thereof, he was allowed to continue. Thereafter, respondent no.3 passed an order on 15.2.1995 granting promotion to 149 persons including the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative)for a period of one year. In pursuance thereof, he joined on 1.3.1995. Vide order dated 30.9.2003, the services of the petitioner were regularized. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 30.6.2007 and opposite parties fixed the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.7.1993 thereby reckoning the length of petitioner's services on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) are 13 years 11 months and 14 days only. Thereafter, this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4527(SS) of 2009 for the grant of notional promotion to the similarly situated and even junior persons to the petitioner namely Sri Shyam Manohar Lal Srivastava to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) with effect from the date of promotion of junior person with the direction to fix his pension w.e.f. 18.4.1990. In pursuance thereof, respondent no.3 issued an order on 11.3.2010 complying the judgment and order dated 31.7.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 6.4.2010 claiming benefits of aforesaid judgment and order dated 31.7.2009. When no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
11. Facts of Writ Petition No.1490 (SS) of 2012 (Ram Sundar Lal Maurya v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Cooperative Supervisor on 20.6.1978 and his services were made confirmed subsequently. The petitioner was granted selection grade on 20.06.1988 on completion of ten years service and after completion of 14 years service he was granted first promotional pay-scale and thereafter, on completion of 24 years service of petitioner was granted second promotional pay-scale. He was granted promotion on to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) vide order dated 17.5.2010. On 25.5.2010, the order dated 17.5.2010 was amended to the extent changing the place of posting after promotion from Faizabad to Sultanpur. The petitioner was allowed to work on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative)on 7.6.2010. Thereafter, respondent no.3 issued an order on 9.8.2010 granting pensionary benefits to a similarly situated person namely Sadho Ram Gangwar by way of grant of notional promotion to him to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) with effect from the date of promotion of junior persons i.e. 18.4.1990 in compliance of judgment and order dated 15.3.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No.1409(SS) of 2010. Thereafter, several persons junior to the petitioner were granted notional promotion. The petitioner made representation on 31.8.2010 claiming notional promotion. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 30.6.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation on 20.7.2011 before respondent no.3 for extension of benefit of judgment and order dated 15.3.2010 and when no order has been passed, the present writ petition has been filed.
12. Facts of Writ Petition No.4311 (SS) of 2014 (Jai Prakash Vimal v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 24.6.1978, joined the services and his services were confirmed subsequently. Juniors/ similarly situated persons to petitioner were promoted on the next promotion post i.e. Cooperative Inspector Group-II. After that, petitioner made several application; and personal contact to respondents but they are sitting tight over the matter. The petitioner was promoted on the next higher post i.e. Cooperative Inspector Group-II after expiry of 20 years of promotion of junior persons. The petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2014. He will not get the pension due to not completion of service at lest 10 years on government post while juniors to the petitioner are getting. In an identical case this Court passed a judgment and order dated 10.7.20014 in Writ Petition No.6359(SS) of 2010 (SB Sharma v. State of U.P. and others) granted promotion w.e.f. 18.4.1990. When no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
13. Facts of Writ Petition No.3198 (SS) of 2014 are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor in Central Cooperative Bank, Biswan, District Sitapur on 12.5.1973. The services of the petitioner were absorbed under respondent no.6 and he belonged to Group of Vikalp Patra-B Cooperative Supervisors. Respondent no.3 issued an order 15.2.1995 granting promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on temporary and ad hoc basis in pursuance of which he joined on 2.3.1995 and was posted at District Lakhimpur Kheri. The U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad gave recommendation for regularization of promotion of petitioner as well as other persons in pursuance of which respondent no.3 issued an order dated 30.9.2013 regularizing ad hoc promotions of 305 persons including the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Thereafter, respondent no.3 also issued an order on 2.1.2008 confirming services of 131 persons including the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) wherein service of petitioner were confirmed w.e.f. 1.10.2005. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 31.12.2011. Respondent no.4 sent pension papers of petitioner to respondent no.5 for release of government pension and gratuity to petitioner. The office of respondent no.5 raised objection to the effect that petitioner was not entitled for grant of pension on the ground that 10 years' qualifying sergice for pension in case of the petitioner, if continued from the date of his regularization i.e. 30.9.2003 was not complete and as such the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1050 (SS) of 2013. Respondent no.3 issued another order on 21.1.2013 allotting the year of vacancies to the concerned Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) including the petitioner who were granted promotions during the year 1989 to 2001 whereby the petitioner has been regularized against the vacancy of the year 1995-96 and on that basis objections ere removed and vide letter dated 8.3.2013 papers in respect of the finalization of pension of the petitioner were forwarded to the respondent no.5 and in pursuance of the same petitioner's pension has been fixed w.e.f. 2.3.1995 whereas promotion of several junior persons were regularized against the vacancies of previous years on the one hand as mentioned above and on the other pension of several junior persons were fixed w.e.f. 18.4.1990 as a result of grant of notional promotion to the post in question for the purpose of pensionary benefits w.e.f. 18.04.1990 to them. The petitioner made representation to respondent no.3 claiming notional promotion and when no order has been passed, he filed the present writ petition.
14. Facts of Writ Petition No.6550 (SS) of 2014 (Sheodan Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 23.4.1978. The meeting of department promotion committee was held on 31.1.1994. Respondent no.3 issued an order granting promotion to the person junior to the petitioner as the petitioner was superseded in the matter of promotion due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding as well as proceedings of Surchage. The petitioner was absolved from all the charges levelled in the said disciplinary proceedings as well as proceeding of surcharge by means of order dated 18.11.1996. The meeting of DPC was held on 15.7.199 in which petitioner's case for promotion was considered. On 3.12.1999, respondent no.3 passed an order granting promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date of joining and he was directed to submit his joining report with a period of one month failing which the promotion granted to him was to be cancelled automatically. He submitted his joining report on 21.12.1999 and was allowed to work on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). The meeting of DPC was held on 29.7.2003 in which the case of petitioner's promotion was reconsidered. on 22.8.2003, respondent no.3 passed an order granting notional promotion to petitioner with effect from the date of promotion of junior persons i.e. 10.5.1994 and the petitioner was granted benefits of annual increments but he was not granted any arrears of difference of salary on the one hand asnd on the other he was also not granted the benefits of selection grade payable to him on the completion of 8 years' service i.e. 10.5.2002 and promotional pay-scale payable to him on the completion of 14 years' service i.e. 10.5.2008 at the time of fixation of his salary and as such the petitioner made representation. Respondent no.3 sent a letter to respondent no.1 on 11.11.2008 making recommendation in favour of petitioner for granting the said benefits, however, the matter of petitioner remained pending for final disposal. The petitioner was granted further promotion to the Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 11.2.2010 and while working on the said post, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. On 23.2.2012, respondent no.4 issued an order refusing to grant benefits of time scales to petitioner. Respondent no.3 also issued an order on 30.7.2012 issuing directing to counting the period of service of petitioner from the date of notional promotion i.e. 10.5.1994 for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits only. The petitioner made another representation to respondents for considering the case in the light of the judgment and orders dated 29.7.2008 and 23.7.2009 and order dated 11.2.2010 on which respondent no.3 issued an order dated 21.1.2013 refusing to grant the benefits of time scales to petitioner. On 6.2.2013, respondent no.4 issued an order communicating copy of the order dated 21.1.2013 to petitioner. Respondent no.1 also issued order dated 21.1.2013 refusing to grant the same. Respondent no.4 also issued order dated 2.6.2014 refusing to grant the benefits of time scale. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
15. Facts of the Writ Petition No.670 (SS) of 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.3.1992 on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). The D.P.C. was held on 15.1.2007 for considering promotion of employees. The first adverse entry has been incorporated in character roll of the petitioner in the year 2000-01 against which petitioner moved representation on 4.6.2000 before appropriate authority. The second adverse entry has been given to petitioner in the year 2003-04, but the said adverse entry was not communicated to the petitioner. The third adverse entry has been given in the year 2004-05 which was communicated to the petitioner after lapse of three months. D.P.C. rejected the consideration of petitioner's promotion on 1.2.2007. On 2.3.2007, the petitioner moved a representation stating therein that one Naveen Kumar Srivastava who is junior to petitioner has been promoted and therefore the petitioner be granted promotion. When no order was passed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2870 (SS) of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.5.2007 with a direction to competent authority to decide representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks and in pursuance thereof, Additional Registration (Administration) decided the representation and rejected candidature of petitioner for consideration of promotion by D.P.C. Against his rejection for promotion, he made severals representations through proper channel as well as through U.P.C. recent of which is dated 17.10.2006. In the DPC held on July 2007, the name of petitioner was sent for consideration for promotion and no consideration has been made in third meeting, forth meeting and fifth meeting of DPC, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
16. Facts of the Writ Petition No.1613 (SS) of 2008 (Veg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 1.1.1958. The petitioner has been promoted to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 19.10.1978and on 10.11.1978 he joined the said post. The petitioner was sent on deputation on 1.4.1979 and 31.1.1980. An adverse entry has been awarded against the petitioner in the year 1979-1980. Thereafter, the petitioner has been punished vide order dated 21.3.1986. Vide orders dated 15.10.1988, 16.1.1989 and 27.4.1992, Mr. Satya Vir Singh, Mr. Hari Nath Singh Kushwaha and others juniors to the petitioners have been promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-I. The petitioner made representation claiming promotion which has been rejected. Vide order dated 30.9.2003, the petitioner has been regularized on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II. Against punishment, the petitioner filed appeal which was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, he filed revision before State Government and when revision filed by the petitioner was not decided, he filed Writ Petition No.6095(SS) of 2006 wherein this Court was pleased to direct respondent no.3 to send record to the State Government and the State Government may decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter. The revision has been decided vide order dated 21.2.2017 in pursuance of the order of this Court exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. When no order was passed in regard to notional promotion, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.
17. Facts of Writ Petition No.7660 (SS) of 2014 (Ram Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Supervisor on 20.6.1978 and he was confirmed on the said post on 29.6.1979. On 22.5.1995 several juniors to petitioner were promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and in the list of confirmation dated 22.5.1995, they are placed at serial nos.48 onward. On 17.5.2010, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Although the juniors to petitioner were promoted on 22.5.1995, but the petitioner has been promoted only on 17.5.2010. On 31.12.2013 the petitioner retired from the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) but he has not been paid pension for the reason that the petitioner has not completed ten years of service. When no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
18. Facts of Writ Petition No.7660 (SS) of 2014 (Ram Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that petitioner has been appointed on the post of Supervisor on 20.6.1978. He was sent on training and subsequently he was confirmed on the post of Supervisor on 29.6.1979. Vide order dated 7.4.1983, a Divison Bench of this Court has been pleased to pass one judgment in the case of R.N. Dixit v. State of U.P. and anr. Wherein this Court has made it clear that once the legal position is delcared by the Court regarding principles and it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to give effect to same and not to deny the benefit of the decision to similarly situated persons who did not file writ petitions challenging the Government Orders. In Writ Petition No.13240 (SS) of 1989 (Bengali Prasad and others v. State of U.P. and others), this Hon'ble Court has been pelased to grant notional promotion to the petitioner. Juniors to the petitioners who are placed at serial no.48 onwards were given promotion vide order dated 22.5.1995. The State Government has issued a Government Order receiving the same controversy in which it is mentioned that if the juniors to the petitioner/s have been promoted, then the matter may be disposed of by the Registrar, Cooperative for granting notional promotion. The petitioner has relied upon various judgment in this regard. The petitioner has been given promotion vide order dated 17.5.2010. The petitioner retired from the post of Cooperative Supervisor Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer, Cooperative on 31.12.2013.
19. Facts of Writ Petition No.7626 (SS) of 2014 (Keshav Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Supervisor and he was confirmed on the said post on 29.6.1979. On 17.5.2010, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Although the juniors to petitioner were promoted on 22.5.1995, but the petitioner has been promoted only on 17.5.2010. On 31.12.2013 the petitioner retired from the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) but he has not been paid pension for the reason that the petitioner has not completed ten years of service. When no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
20. Facts of Writ Petition No.4918 (SS) of 2012 (Kashi Ram Shukla v. The State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor and while working on the said post, his services were confirmed. On 22.5.1995, respondent no.3 issued an order granting promotion to 101 persons including petitioner on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and in pursuance thereof, he joined on the said post on 6.6.1995. The U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad vide its letter dated 4.7.2003 has given recommendations for regularization of petitioner's promotion on the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) along with others similarly situated person. Respondent no.3 regularizing 301 persons including the petitioner on 30.9.2003 and the petitioner was regularized against the vacancy of the year 1996-97. On 2.1.2008, respondent no.3 issued an order confirming services of 131 persons including the petitioner on the said post. The petitioner while working on the said post retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2011 and as such, pension papers of petitioner were processed and were sent to respondent no.6 for release of government pension and gratuity to petitioner. Respondent no.7 on 26.12.2011 issued a letter to respondent no.5 raising certain objections to which respondent no.2 sent a letter on 22.2.2012 giving explanation to the objections. The matter was referred to respondent no.3 on 25.6.2012. The petitioner made representation before respondent no.4 on 14.8.2012 and 2.7.2012 and 17.8.2012 and when no order was passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
21. Facts of Writ Petition No.1021 (SS) of 2007 (Dev Narian Shukla v. Sultanpur District Cooperative Bank Limited, Sultanpur and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 409/468 IPC. On 23.9.1970, the petitioner was placed under suspension. In the criminal case, the petitioner was not found guilty of any offence and final report was submitted in his favour exonerating him from the allegations levelled against him in FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition No.8533 (SS) of 1989 challenging suspension order dated 23.9.1970 with further prayer to reinstate in service with all consequential benefits wherein this Court was pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that suspension order shall remain suspended. In compliance of the order, the petitioner was allowed to resume the duties. Thereafter, this Court was further pleased to pass an interim order directing to respondents that from the date of the reinstatement the petitioner shall be paid salary admissible to him under Rules. On 30.6.1998 the petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation. The writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision regarding payment of arrears of petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and the same be communicated to him. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 10.2.2014 communicating copy of the aforesaid judgment and order and in continuation of the same the petitioner made several representations for compliance of the judgment. Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Case No.1230(C) of 2004 and during pendency of the contempt case, all the retiral dues were paid to him. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded interest on the retiral dues withheld by the respondents. This Court was pleased to dismiss the contempt petition giving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. Hence this writ petition.
22. Facts of Writ Petition No.3753 (SS) of 2007 (Dev Narain Shukla v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor. An FIR was levelled against the petitioner under Sections 409/468 IPC. The petitioner was placed under suspension however no departmental enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was exonerated from the charges/ allegations levelled against him. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8533 (SS) of 1989 challenging suspension order claiming reinstatement wherein an interim was passed suspending the suspension order. In pursuance thereof, the he was allowed to resume the duties but was not paid salary. This Court vide order dated 10.12.1990 was pleased to pass further interim order for making payment of salary to the petitioner admissible to him. However, the said interim order was not complied with, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Case No.1916 (C) of 1993. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1998. The writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction for taking deciding regarding payment of arrears of petitioner keeping in view of fact that the petitioner has already retired during the pendency of the case. When order was not complied with, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Case No.1230 (C) of 2004 and during pendency of the contempt petition, all retiral dues of the petitioner was paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, contempt petition was dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum with the observation that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the determination of the amount admissible to the petitioner, he may seek his remedy in appropriate Forum. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1021 (SS) of 2007 challenging order dated 5.4.2005 so far as it has rejected the claim of petitioner remaining dues wherein this Court was pleased to grant time to respondents to file counter affidavit and the same is pending. The petitioner made representations before respondent no.2 claiming notional promotion on 14.2.2007 and 19.3.2007 and when no order was passed the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
23. Facts of Writ Petition No.7769 (SS) of 2013 (Brahma Swaroop Saraswat v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor and services of the petitioner has been confirmed on 30.11.1987. On 17.5.2010, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Although juniors to petitioner were promoted on 22.5.1995 but the petitioner has been promoted only on 17.5.2010. On 26.6.1995 and 10.8.2013 the petitioner has sent representation to respondents requesting them to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 22.5.1995 i.e. when his juniors have been given promotion and pay all consequential benefits but the same is of no avail. On 30.09.2013 the petitioner has retired from the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) but petitioner will not get pension for the reason that the petitioner has not completed ten years' service. When no order has been passed on the representations, he has filed the present writ petition.
24. Facts of Writ Petition No.5553 (SS) of 2012 (Chandra Prakash Pal v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 12.4.1977 and services of the petitioner has been confirmed. On 22.5.1995 several juniors to petitioner were promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). On 30.9.2003 the petitioner has been promoted on the post Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Although juniors to petitioners were promoted on 22.5.1995, but the petitioner has been promoted only on 30.9.2003. On 30.4.2008 the petitioner retired while working on the said post on attaining the age of superannuation. When no order has been for notional promotion and pension, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
25. Facts of Writ Petition No.2257 (SS) of 2010 (Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Supervisor, Faizabad on 16.11.1977 and services of the petitioner have been confirmed on 17.2.1987. On 22.5.1995 several juniors to petitioner were promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). On 30.9.2003 the petitioner has been promoted on the post Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Although juniors to petitioners were promoted on 22.5.1995, but the petitioner has been promoted only on 30.9.2003. On 31.3.2010 the petitioner retired while working on the said post on attaining the age of superannuation. When no order has been for notional promotion and pension, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
26. Facts of Writ Petition No.8633 (SS) of 2010 (Ram Kishor Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 4.4.1957. Thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed on the said post. On 7.4.1978, 22.7.1978 and 17.9.1978 large number of juniors to petitioner were promoted, but the petitioner was not promoted and ultimately, he was promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) vide promotion order dated May 8, 1985. Although juniors to petitioners were promoted in the year 1978, but the petitioner has been promoted only in the year 1985 due to this reason, he has not been granted pension. On 31.1.1990 the petitioner retired while working on the said post on attaining the age of superannuation. When no order has been for notional promotion and pension, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
27. Facts of Writ Petition No.7208 (SS) of 2013 (Shiv Ram Verma v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was appointed in February, 1958 as Cooperative Supervisor and while working on the said post he was initially posted as Seed Store Incharge, Kotra in District Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner was transferred from District Lakhimpur Kheri to District lucknow in the year 1966. While working on the post of Cooperative Supervisor, services of the petitioner were confirmed on 30.4.1972. He was transferred to District Hardoi where he worked as Seed Store Incharge Thamarwa upto 23.2.1981. The petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on officiating/ temporary basis on 7.4.1981. He joined his service on the said post on 24.2.1981. Vide order dated 20.6.1984 passed by respondent no.3, petitioner was reverting to the post of Cooperative Supervisor against which petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3592 of 1984 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.8.1984. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 10.8.1984 which was registered and numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10777 of 1984. Respondent no.3 issued an order on 9.5.1985 granting promotion to 278 persons ignoring petitioner's case for promotion due to pendency of S.L.P. filed before Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner withdrew SLP in order to pursue his case before respondent no.3. The petitioner made representations to respondent no.3 for the grant of promotion on 15.10.1985 and 12.11.1984. On 18.4.1988, a complaint was made against the petitioner in respect of non-submission of certain charge of the Seed Store Thamarwa where the petitioner was posted from 17.8.1976 to 3.2.1981. Show cause notice dated 25.5.1988 was issued to petitioner for submitting explanation. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.2.1990 and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 8.1.1991. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4542 of 1990 which was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 17.9.1991 with direction to conclude the departmental inquiry within the stipulated time. On 31.7.1991 the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service. Respondent no.4 passed an order awarding punishment to petitioner in relation to the departmental inquiry whereby the salary for the period of suspension was withheld and an order of recovery from the petitioner of amounting to Rs.21858.69 along with the interest was also passed. Feeling aggrieved, departmental appeal was filed which was rejected on 8.8.1994. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner Writ Petition No.5665 (SS) of 1994 challenging orders dated 11.2.1994 and 8.8.1994, which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 23.4.2013 whereby punishment order and appellate Order were quashed with observation that the petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner communicated the said judgment and order to respondents vide application dated 13.5.2013 whereupon respondent no.6 issued order dated 27.5.2013 issuing direction for disposal of the dues of petitioner in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.5.2013. The petitioner made representations dated 5.6.2013 claiming notional pr3omotion to the post in question w.e.f. 7.4.1978 as well as pensionary benefits as par with the junior and similarly situated persons which has been rejected vide order dated 27.6.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
28. Facts of Writ Petition No.2771 (SS) of 2013 (Mahendra Pal v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner initially joined services as Kamdar in September, 1981. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 7.8.1996. On 17.5.2010, respondent no.3 issued order granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and in pursuance thereof, he submitted joining report and was allowed to work on the said post. On 31.10.2012, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation was retired from service while working on the said post. However, the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Supervisor has not been counted in addition to the services rendered by him on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) as the services rendered by him on the post of Cooperative Supervisor are being treated as non-government services in view of regulation 2(17) of the Regulations, 1976 as well as rule 3(d) of the Service Rules, 1979 as a result of which the petitioner has not been treated to be qualified for government pension in as much as after exclusion of the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Supervisor, the total length of the petitioner's service comes less than 10 years. Challenging the said validity of the provisions of Regulations, the present writ petition has been filed.
29. Facts of Writ Petition No.6913 (SS) of 2004 (UdaiRaj Dewedi v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner joined on the post of Cooperative Supervisor. The petitioner was granted promoition on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service while working on the said post on 31.5.1997. When the petitioner has not been granted notional promotion and pensionary benefits, he has filed present writ petition.
30. Facts of Writ Petition No.7232 (SS) of 2010 (Aditya Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 11.5.1972 and thereafter services of the petitioner was confirmed. Respondent no.3 passed an order on 30.9.2003 whereby similarly situated and juniors to petitioner was promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Thereafter, respondent no.3 passed an order on 29.7.2008 in compliance of the judgment and order dated 3.3.2008 in Writ Petition No.1149 (SS) of 2008 granting promotion of juniors to the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II and their services on the post in question were reckoned w.e.f. 18.4.1990 and on that score his services became more than ten years and as such they were granted pensionary benefits. Similar benefit was allowed to similarly situated persons and junior to the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioner made representation for the grant of similar relief on 27.10.2009 and when no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
31. Facts of Writ Petition No.2949 (SS) of 2010 (Gyanendra Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 15.11.1972. He was absorbed under respondent no.5 on 1.1.1977. Respondent no.2 issued an order on 30.9.2003 granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). On 8.10.2003 the petitioner was allowed to join on the said post. On 30.11.2008, the petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2125 (SS) of 2009 wherein the Court has passed an order on 10.4.2009 directing the respondents for grant of the benefit of notional promotion w.e.f. the date of promotion of junior person i.e. 18.4.1990 to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and to fix his pension w.e.f. 18.4.1990. Respondent no.2 passed an order on 13.7.2009 in compliance of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 10.4.2009 granting notional promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 18.4.1990 and his pension was fixed accordingly as per direction of this Court. Feeling Aggrieve Special Appeal No.746 of 2009 was filed wherein the Division Bench of this Court decided the special appeal refusing to grant any interim relief vide order dated 30.10.2009. The petitioner was paid the amount payable to him in lieu of pension and gratuity admissible for the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II i.e. 2,72,000/- and thereafter he is receiving pension month to month without any interruption. However, the amount payable to the petitioner has not been paid to him despite the fact that the same has been sanctioned by the competent authority. Respondent no.3 issued a letter dated 5.4.2010 to respondent no.5 giving information to the effect that the salary bill relating to the period of 16 months when the petitioner was posted as Cooperative Supervisor under respondent no.6 amounting to Rs.89299/- has been prepared and sanctioned in accordance with circular of respondent no.5 being letter no.19 C. Pradhi. Vyo dated 21.5.2009 but due to non-availablity of fund in the salary contribution account no.1186 of the district and as such by means of the aforesaid letter the required action was requested to be taken further. When no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
32. Facts of Writ Petition No.3174 (SS) of 2011 (Raghuraj Singh v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 27.6.1978. He was granted promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) vide order dated 17.5.2010 and in pursuance thereof, he submitted his joining report on 28.5.2010 and was allowed to work on the promoted post. On 31.7.2010, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). However, since the respondents are not counting the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Cooperative Supervisor in his total length of service, the petitioner has been said to be disqualified for pensionary benefits under Government Order dated 1.7.1989 inasmuch as on the post of Cooperative Supervisor, the length of petitioner's services on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II are below ten years. Respondent no.3 issued an order on 9.8.2010 granting notional promotion to the similarly situated persons namely Sri Sadho Ram Gangwar to the post in question w.e.f. the date of promotion of junior person i.e. 18.4.1990 in compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.3.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1409 (SS) of 2010 and on that basis Sri Sadho Ram Gangwar was granted pensionary benefits. He made representation on 6.9.2010 claiming benefits granted to similarly situated person and when no order has been passed the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
33. Facts of Writ Petition No.6549 (SS) of 2011 (Mathura Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner joined on the post of Cooperative Supervisor on 1.12.1954. On 18.12.1967, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-I and he joined on the said post. The petitioner was reverted to the post of Cooperative Supervisor. On 1.10.1969 the petitioner again promoted to the post of Cooperative Inspector, Grade-II and as such, he took over the charge of the same post. The respondents illegally not treated the periods of petitioner's services of the post of Cooperative Supervisor from 1.12.1954 to 17.12.1961 and from 1.1.1968 to 30.9.1969 for pensionary purpose. Vide order dated 12.8.2002, similarly situated person namely Sri Hardeo Prasad Yadav was given notional promotion on the post of Cooperative Inspector, Grade-II only to make his period of services of the post of Cooperative Supervisor entitled for pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted representations/ reminders but no order has been passed on it. When no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
34. Facts of Writ Petition No.4397 (SS) of 2011 (Sanktha Prasad Awasthi v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor. On 30.9.2003, respondent no.2 issued order granting promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, he submitted his joining report on the post and was allowed to work. On 31.7.2006, the petitioner while working on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II on attaining the age of superannuation retired. Respondent no.2 issued order on 30.11.2006 making pay fixation of petitioner in furtherance of promotion order dated 30.9.2003 thereby fixing the petitioner's salary on 9.10.2003 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 with the direction for recovery of the excess amount already paid to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was paid salary in higher scale i.e. Rs.5000-8000 on the basis of LPC dated 1.10.2003 keeping in view that the petitioner while working on the post of Cooperative Education Instructor on ad hoc basis was drawing the same prior to the date of his promotion. Respondent no. 2 passed an order on 28.12.2007 granting notional promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of promotion of junior persons i.e. 15.2.1995 with the condition that the petitioner would not be paid any arrears of salary as a result of notional promotion. Respondent no.2 issued a corrigendum letter on 6.6.2008 making amendment in the order dated 28.12.2007 to the effect that the part of the order which states that the petitioner would not be paid any arrears of salary as a result of notional promotion is amended to the extent that the petitioner would not be paid arrears of any salary/ allowances etc. for the period between the date of notional promotion i.e. 15.2.1995 to the date of actual promotion i.e. 9.10.2003. However, the petitioner's salary arising out of the grant of notional promotion vide order dated 28.12.2007 was not fixed consequently withholding the payment of pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner despite the repeated representations made by him and as such the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7919 (SS) of 2010 which was disposed of with as direction for disposal of the petitioner's representation dated 29.9.2008. Respondent no.2 issued an order on 3.2.2011 disposing of petitioner's representation in compliance of judgment and order dated 20.11.2000 after making fixation of the petitioner's salary by means of order dated 25.1.2011. Respondent no.3 issued a letter on 31.5.2011 to respondent no.4 for passing order of recovery of alleged excess amount already paid to the petitioner i.e. Rs.17845.00 under the head of salary and Rs.86284.00 under the head of the dearness allowance total Rs.98129.00 against the petitioner in compliance of pay fixation orders dated 30.11.2006 and 25.1.2011. Respondent no.4 issued letter on 24.6.2011 forwarding the matter of release of pensionary benefits of the petitioner to respondent no.5 with the direction for recovery of the amount in q.uestion from the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
35. Facts of Writ Petition No.3106 (SS) of 2011 (Prem Shankar Trivedi v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was absorbed under respondent no.4 on the post of Cooperative Supervisor whose date of initial appointment was 23.12.1970 and his services were made confirmed on the said post. Respondent no.3 passed an order on 15.2.1995 granting promotion to petitioner to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and in pursuance thereof, he joined the said post and was allowed to continue as such. On 31.10.2005, petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation while working on the said post retired, but opposite parties have not fixed the pension of petitioner w.e.f. 2.3.1995 thereby reckoning the length of petitioner's services on the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) are 10 years 7 months and 29 days only. Similarly situated person namely Sri Shyam Manohar Lal Srivastava filed a writ petition which was number as Writ Petition No.4527 (SS) of 2009 and the same was disposed of with direction to grant notional promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) with effect from the date of promotion of junior person with the direction to fix his pension w.e.f. 18.4.1990 which was complied with vide order dated 11.3.2010 passed by respondent no.3. The petitioner made representation before respondents claiming the benefits granted to the similarly situated person namely Sri Shyam Manohar Lal Srivastava and when no order has been passed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
36. Facts of Writ Petition No.3013 (SS) of 2015 (Ramesh Chandra Srivastava & Another v. State of U.P. and others) are that the petitioners had been appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisor through selection from U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board constitued under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. They had been appointed under the supervision of Provincial Cooperative Union (PCU), Lucknow. They joined on the post of Cooperative Supervisor in the office of District Assistant Registrar Cooperative, District Sitapur. In the year 1978, the Provincial Cooperative Union (PCU), Lucknow issued a seniority/merit/ gradation list of Cooperative Supervisors appointed through U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board. Persual of the aforesaid seniority/merit/gradation list shows that the name of the petitioner no.1 finds place at serial no.361 having gradation no.349/842 and the name of the petitioner no.2 finds place at serial no.415 having gradation no.433/842. The State Government has issued a Government Order has issued a Government Order on 8.6.2000 issuing directions for considering the claim of notional promotion of similarly situated persons that of Sri Shyam Bihari Lal Srivastava and others. Subsequently, another Government Order was issued on 14.2.2002 directing the respondents to consider the similar cases of notional promotion on the basis of merit of the case. On 3.3.2010, again a new seniority/ gradation list of Cooperative Supervisors have been issued in which the name of petitioner no.1 finds place at serial no.87 having new gradation number 87 and the name of petitioner no.2 finds place at serial no.118 having new gradation number as 118. Next promotional post from the post of Cooperative Supervisor is the post of Cooperative Supervisor is the post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) under the Subordinate Cooperative ServiceRules, 1979 and the criteria for promotion to the said post is seniority subject to the rejection of unfit in accordance with seniority list of Cooperative Supervisors on State-wise basis. On 16.11.2012, petitioners were promoted to the post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) under the 'Service Rules of 1979'. Perusal of the aforesaid promotion order dated 16.11.2012 reveals that the name of the petitioner no.1 finds plae at serial no.2 and the name of petitioner no.2 finds place at serial no.5. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, petitioners joined on the post Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) on 17.11.2012. On attaining the age of supperannuation petitioner no.1 retired on 30.11.2014 while being posted at District-Rampur from the post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) and petitioner no.2 retired on 31.7.2014 from the post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). The respondents are not counting the services rendered by the petitioners on the post of Cooperative Supervisors w.e.f. 17.7.1978 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and since the length of petitioners' services on the post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) are below ten years and therefore the petitioners are not being treated to be eligible for getting pension.
Four persons who have been appointed on the post of Cooperative Supervisors in the year 1978 along with the petitioners through the same recruitment process and junior to petitioners have been promoted on the post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative) in the year 1989, 1994 etc. The said junior persons have worked for more than 20 years on the promoted post of Cooperative Inspector, Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative). Similarly various writ petitions have been filed before this Court for grant of notional promotion in the matter of Cooperative Supervisors and this Court has granted notional promotion to writ petitioners where persons junior to them have been promoted before the promotion of writ petitioners. In this regard, the petitoners representated before respodent no.3 vide representations dated 15.3.2015 and 16.3.2015 respectively for the grant of notional promotion with effect the date of persons junior to the petitoners have been promoted. By means of the impugned orders the respondent no.3 have rejected representations of petitioners on the ground that the juniors who are alleged by the petitioners to be promoted before the promotion of the petitioners, had been promoted by the respondents only for ad hoc period of 90 days on the basis of regional arrangement and the case of petitioners cannot be equated with them.
37. Facts of Writ Petition No.7561 (SS) of 2014 are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Co-operative Supervisor by a duly selected committee on 24.7.1978. The State Government issued government order to appoint the Supervisors working in Cooperative Department on the post of A.D.O. (Co-operative) and accordingly, the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of A.D.O. (Co-operative) vide order dated 10.9.1989. He joined the said post on 15.9.1989. By means of an order passed on 25.8.1992, the petitioner was reverted from the post of A.D.O. (Co-operative). Feeling aggieved, he filed Writ-A NO.33432 of 1992, wherein interim order was granted staying the order of reversion passed against the petitioner. In pursuance thereto, he continued to discharge his duties and subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2001. The respondents passed an order of regularization on 25.9.2009, regularizing the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.8.2006. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.10.2012. He filed Writ Petition No.30121 of 2014for the grant of certain retiral benefits, which was finally disposed of with the direction to file a representation and to decide the same. In compliance of the order of this Court, the impugned order was passed on 28.9.2014, whereby recording reason that the petitioner does not have requisite qualifying service for the payment of pension, fixation of pension has been recalled.
38. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in case juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion on the post of A.D.O., Cooperative then since the year 1995 onwards the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of notional promotion with effect from date the juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion. He next submits that the similar controversy like the present one came into consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.1771 (SS) of 1996 (Somesh Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and others) decided vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2007 wherein the claim for the grant of notional promotion was considered and it was directed that the case of the petitioner of that petition be considered with effect from the date juniors have been granted promotion.
39. Next submission is that taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court, the State Government proceeded to grant notional promotion for calculation of qualifying service for the payment of pension and accordingly, pension was accorded to the petitioner as well as similarly situated employees of the cooperative society who were subsequently appointed in the government service. He further submits that the case of State of U.P. and others v. Rosan Singh and other, State of U.P. v. Rookmangal Rathore were taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and by distinguishing the issue involved, learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed for consideration of claim of the petitioner for the grant of notional promotion. He next submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was not subject matter of challenge in the Special Appeal as well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the same has attained finality in the eye of law.
40. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon judgment and order rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Hari Singh Gupta decided on 26.10.2009, State of U.P. and others v. Durga Prasad and others decided on 6.12.1990 inasmuch as judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 237(SB) of 2001 (Raj Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.) decided on 20.12.200 and on the said basis, his submission is that taking into consideration the judgments passed by this Court on the issue that whether Cooperative Supervisors are entitled for the notional promotion, this Court issued direction that in case juniors have been granted promotion, the claim of the petitioner may also be taken care and necessary order shall be passed in this regard.
41. His next submission is that most of the petitions, the employees are very old and in case this Court takes sympathetic view in issuing direction for consideration of their claim for the grant of notional promotion, they may get pension for survival of themselves and their families in the interest of justice.
42. He next submits that the delay occasioned in claiming the notional promotion is for the reason that the orders which were passed in respect of the case of the juniors were not available to the petitioner. When the writ petition has been filed before this Court, then somehow they get the order, therefore, the claim set up before this Court for the grant of notional promotion be granted to the petitioner with effect from the date juniors have been granted promotion.He next submits that in the case of Rosan Singh (supra), there was no claim setup for the grant of notional promotion. By relying on the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, he submits that the case for consideration was distinguishable and the judgment was passed by separating the issue. For that, on a query made to learned Additional Advocate General on the point, he submitted that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. In fact in the writ petition, prayer was made for the grant of notional promotion.
43. He next submits that on the basis of decision of this Court, the State Government resolved to issue government order for consideration of claim of similarly situated other employees of the Cooperative Department seeking claim for the grant of notional promotion and as per the government order, most of the employees were granted notional promotion with effect from the date juniors were granted promotion. In the light of the said government order, his submission is that in case the Court proceeds to consider the claim of the petitioners, this aspect may also be taken into consideration that there are few numbers of petitioners who have been deprived in getting the benefit of notional promotion on the point of delay. In support of his submission on the point of delay, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of State v. Hari Singh Gahlaut and submitted that the petitioner has claimed notional promotion after lapse of almost several years, therefore in the light the said judgment they are entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition.
44. On the other hand, Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submit that submissions advanced by Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Rajan Singh and others and Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue, recorded that unequal cannot be treated equally therefore, the respondents were not holding the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II which is a government post. When they retired from service, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and granting pensionary benefits with effect from 7.4.1978 as has been done in the case of Bengali Prasad (supra). Next submission is that the issue of delay was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been held that inordinate delay in claiming the notional promotion cannot be granted at belated stage.
45. Next submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.244 of 2002 decided vide judgment and order dated 11.3.2019 wherein ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was taken into consideration and in the light of the said, special appeal was decided. On the said basis, their submission is that the claim setup by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and in the light of the said judgment, the benefit claimed cannot be granted.
46. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that there is highly belated claim of notional promotion, hence the same is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches. They lastly submit that the petitioners were granted promotion on the post of A.D.O. Cooperative in the year 2003 and retired from the post on 31.3.2010 and some of the petitioners on different dates, therefore they are not having required qualifying service for the payment of pension, thus he is not entitled for the same.
47. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that at the very out-set it is relevant to bring into the notice of this Hon'ble Court of the judgment and order dated 22.01.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.491(SS) of 2002. Challenging the judgment and order dated 22.01.2002 a special appeal bearing Special Appeal No.244/ 2002 was filed before this Court and the said special appeal was finally heard on 11.3.2019 and on the said date, the special appeal has been allowed after considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7340-7341 of 2003 "State of U.P. & others v. Roshan Singh & others" and the judgment and order dated 22.01.2002 whereby a mandamus was issued by learned Single Judge directing the opposite parties to give notional promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.4.1978 when juniors to petitioner were promoted, has been set aside and the writ petition has been dismissed.
48. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the issue involved in the instant bunch of writ petitions is exactly the same like the issue involved in Writ Petition No.491 (SS) of 2002 and in the instant bunch of writ petitions the petitioners are also claiming notional promotion w.e.f. the date of promotion of alleged juniors who were promoted on ad hoc basis under the local stop gap arrangement and as such, the instant bunch of writ petition are liable to be decided in terms of judgment and order dated 11.3.2019 passed in Special Appeal No.244/2002.
49. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the petitioners were initially appointed as Cooperative Supervisor which is a non-government post. The persons with whom the parity is being claimed by the petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days under the Government Order dated 10.04.1980 whereunder the Deputy Registrar was given an authority to make ad hoc promotions at the local/ region level from amongst the Cooperative Supervisors posted in the concerned reason. The said arrangement made under the Government Order dated 10.04.1980 was time/ stop gap arrnagement.
50. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the power to make ad hoc promotion by the Deputy Registrar at the division level was taken away by the State Government vide notification dated 08.12.1999. The regular process of promotion to the post of Cooperative Inspector, Grade-II/ ADO (Cooperative) is provided in Subordinate Cooperative Rules, 1979 and the source of recruitment is by direct recruitment through Public Service Commission or by promotion through Commission. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1979 provides that recruitment by promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit in accordance with the procedure laid down in part-iv of the U.P. Selection in consultation with the public service Commission (procedure Rules 1970).
51. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the seniority of Cooperative Supervisors is maintained at the state level and the said seniority is maintained by the Provincial Cooperative Union Limited, Lucknow (PCU).
52. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the petitioners in the entire writ petitions have nowhere claimed that they have been superseded in the matter of promotion when the cases were considered for promotion under the provisions of Subordinate Cooperative Service Rules, 1979 rather as soon as the petitioners came within the criteria of promotion as per the seniority list, he has been given promotion on the post of Cooperative Inspector/ ADO (Cooperative).
53. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the petitioners were not posted in the division in which the persons with whom the parity is being claimed by the petitioners for notional promotion were posted and the arrangement provided in the notification dated 10.04.1980 was a local stop gap arrangement and under the said notification the Deputy Registrar was authorized to make ad hoc promotion of 89 days only from amongst the Coopertive Supervisors posted in his division only.
54. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that so far as case of Shyam Manohar Lal Srivastava and the order passed in Writ Petition No.4527 (SS) of 2009 filed by the said Sri Shyam Lal Srivastava is concerned, in that regard it is clarified that in Writ Petition No.4527(SS) of 2009, the claim of Sri Srivastava was with regard to grant of notional promotion w.e.f. 18.04.1990 and in the said writ petition a judgment and order dated 31.07.2009 was passed by this Court and though the judgment and order dated 31.07.2009 was challenged by filing Special Appeal No.26 of 2010 yet since the authorities of the department were under the threat of contempt which was filed by Srivastava, the compliance of the judgment and order dated 31.07.2009 was made subject to the final outcome of the special appeal.
55. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that so far as the case of Rameshwar Dayal Gangwar is concerned it is clarified that said Sri Gangwar was initially appointed as Cooperative Supervisor in a non-government body and he was given ad hoc promotion for 89 days under the local arrangement provided under the Government Order dated 10.04.1980 vide order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Bareilly Division dated 31.01.1989 and thereafter, he was reverted back to his original post of Cooperative Supervisor vide order dated 9.9.1993. Feeling aggrieved, Mr. Gangwar filed a Writ Petition No.39319 of 1993 in which an interim order dated 12.10.1993 was passed staying the order dated 9.9.1993. Subsequent thereto on coming in the zone of consideration for promotion as per his seniority position under the Rules of 1979, the case of said Sri Gangwar was palced before the D.P.C. held on 31.01.1994 but since the service records of Mr. Gangwar were not complete, his case was not considered and thereafter, in the year 2003, the next D.P.C. was held in which the case of Mr. Gangwar was recommended and accordingly he was promoted w.e.f. 30.09.2003 and thereafter, Mr. Gangwar retired on 31.12.2008. The pending writ petition of Mr. Gangwar bearing no.39319/1993 was allowed by this Hon'ble Court setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition and respondents were further directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date the juniors have been regularized and to release the emoluments etc. including pensionary benefits and in compliance of the said judgment and order dated 16.02.2012, said Sri Gangwar was given ad hoc promotion w.e.f. 22.5.1995 and regularized w.e.f. 01.07.1996 against the vacancies of year 1996-97. It is relevant to point out that a writ petition bearing No.53217/2013 was again filed by Mr. Gangwar for providing pensionary benefits counting his services on adhoc basis under the divisional level arrangement w.e.f. the year 1989 but he said that writ petition has been dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2018.
56. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that so far as the parity claimed by the petitioner with Sri Rajendra Prasad Bharti, Radhey Shyam, Banke Lal Mittar, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Iqbal Ali and Uddal Singh is concerned, in that regard it is clarified that the petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with them for the reason that all those persons were given adhoc promotion under the government order dated 10.04.1980 by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Agra Division, Agra and the petitioner was not posted in Agra Division at the relevant point of time.
57. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that in an identical matter bearing Writ Petition No.68386 of 2015 (Suresh Chandra Upadhya v. State of U.P. and others) it was claimed by the petitioners that he may be given notional promotion with effect from the date persons junior to him were given adhoc promotion under the Government Order dated 10.04.1980 for 89 days by the Deputy Registrar of the Allahabad Division. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 18.05.2016. The said judgment and order dated 18.05.2016 was challenged by the State Government by filing the Special Appeal No.424 of 2017 and in the said special appeal, the judgment and order passed in writ petition has been set aside the writ petition has been restored to its original matter with further observation that the writ Court shall decide the matter afresh in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu & Kashmir in which it has been held that there cannot be any negative equality and no mandamus can be issued by a writ Court asking the State Authority to perpetuate the illegality.
58. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that in another identical case filed by one Sri Lav Prasad Dwivedi through Writ-A No.33208/ 1990 which was filed by him against the order of reversion to his original post of Cooperative Supervisor from the post of Cooperative Inspector Grade-II on which the adhoc promotion under the local stop gap arrangement was given to him under the Government Order dated 17.12.1990 was passed and in compliance thereof, Sri Dwivedi continued as Cooperative Inspector and ultimately the said writ petition has been dismissed by this Court at Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 07.02.2012. Against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2012 a special appeal bearing Special Appeal No.401/ 2012 was filed by Mr. Dwivedi which was allowed setting aside the order dated 7.2.2012 remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition afresh and thereafter, the said writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2015. The judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 was challenged by the State Government by filing of the Special Appeal No.713/2015 and the said special appeal has been allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 and the matter was again remitted back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the writ petition afresh.
59. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that it is relevant to put on record that in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 passed in Special Appeal No.713/2015, the writ petition has again been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10.04.2020 and challenging the said judgment and order dated 10.04.2020, a special appeal bearing Special Appeal No.1021/2020 has been filed by the State Government in which the Hon'ble Appellate Court has been pleased to stay the directions given under the order impugned in the special appeal dated 10.04.2020 and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
60. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that in view of the provisions contained in Article 361 of the Civil Service Regulations, the Government Order dated 01.07.1989, the letter of the State Government dated 29.09.2014 and the orders passed by this Court on 26.11.2018, 22.08.2017 and 20.08.2019 as mentioned hereinabove, the services rendered in the adhoc capacity under the local stop gap arrnagement are not liable to be counted for pensionary purposes and accordingly the pension of the petitioner cannot be revised counting those services as claimed by him in the instant writ petition. In this regard, the recently issued ordinance of the State Government dated 21.10.2020 is also to be considered by this Court.
61. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that there cannot be any negative parity and as per the settled proposition of law as observed by this Court in its judgment and order dated 22.08.2017 passed in Special Appeal No.424/ 2017 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in JT 2009 (13) SC 422 no mandamus can be issued by a writ Court asking the State Authorities to perpetuate the illegality.
62. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming notional promotion on the basis of adhoc promotion of his alleged juniors after the retirement and no writ petition was filed by the petitioner during his service period and as such the instant writ petition is highly barred by laches as the notional promotion as being claimed w.e.f. 18.4.1990 and the petition has been filed in the year 2011 and there is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was not aware of the promotion of his alleged juniors. The petitioner has been a fence sitter for a period of more than 20 years and accordingly he is not entitled to any relief from this Court in view of catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the persons who are not vigilent about their rights are not entitled to a benefit which has been given to a person who was vigilant towards his rights and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches itself.
63. Learned counsel for the respondents next submit that as per the case of the petitioner himself he was given promotion w.e.f. 01.07.1995 vide order dated 30.09.2003 and accordingly, the petitioner came to know that he has been given promotion w.e.f. 1.7.1995 itself though by an order dated 30.09.2003 and in case the petitioner had a grievance regarding the promotion with the retrospective date he should have approached this Court in the year 2003 itself or within two or three years thereafter, but the petitioner has approached this Court an inordinate delay of about 8 years that too without any plausible explaination regarding the delay in filing the writ petition.
64. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
65. To resolve the controversy in regard to claim set up by learned counsel for the petitioners in bunch of writ petitions, it will be necessary to have the benefit of relevant sets of Acts and rules governing the subject. In this connection, the U.P. Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976 ( in short 'the Regulations') would be relevant. In the said Regulations, the post of Cooperative Supervisor has been brought under the Authority of Cooperative Federation. According to Regulation 17 the "members of the employees" mean such persons who are working as the Cooperative Supervisor or worker working under the control of the Authority, irrespective of the fact that he draws wages from the Authority or any other source whose appointing authority will be the Administrative Committee will be deemed to be the employees of the authority.
66. Regulation 72 in Chapter 5 of the Regulations deals with the prvident fund. Clauses 1,2 and 3 of Regulation 72 red as under:
"72(1) The Authority in respect of the members of the employees will establish a contributory provident fund account in which all the necessary provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Contributory Provident Fund Regulations with necessary changes will be applicable in accordance with the provisions of Rules 201 to 204 of the Regulations in which in place of direction of any Cooperative Committee the cross reference of the Authority will be kept.
(2) The member of the employees will maske his contribution in accordance with the provisions of Rule 202 of the Regulations in the above fund.
(3) The Authority will invest the amount of the said fund in accordance with Rule 204 of the Regulations and will get the interest accrued thereon under the provision of Rule 302 of the Regulations."
67. Regulation 73 deals with gratuity. Regulation 74 deals with surety and Regulation 75 deals with honorarium, commission and reward. There is no provision in the Regulations providing pension or pensionary benefits to its employee.
68. Subordinate Cooperative Service Rules, 1979 (in short 'the Rules') regulating recritment and conditions of service of persons appointed to cooperative service were framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
69. As per Rule 4(d) of the Rules "Cooperative Supervisor" means the Supervisor under the employment of Cooperative Institutions.
70. As per Rule 4(p) "village-level workers" means the Group III workers under the employment of the Community Development Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
71. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the Subordinate Cooperative Service Rules, 1979 have been framed by the Governor in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Cooperative Supervisor shall be deemed to be a government servant. The definition of Rules 4(d) and 4(p) clearly indicates the intendment of the legislature. Definition in Rule 4(d) is the clear intendment of the legislature that the Cooperative Supervisor shall be under the employment of the cooperative institutions; whereas in Rule 4(p) village-level workers have been brought under the employment of the Community Development Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, wherever the legislature intended to do so, they have done it expressly. In the case of Cooperative Supervisor the legislature intended that the Supervisor is under the employment of the cooperative institutions and the intendment of the legislature is clearly expressed in Rule 4(d) of the Rules. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the post of Cooperative Supervisor was completely kept out of the purview of the government department, thus the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has no substance.
72. Part III of the Rules deals that the recruitment to the post of Group II is from two sources; by direct recruitment through the Commission and by promotion through the Commission. It reads as under:
"Inspector Group II
(a) by direct recruitment through the Commission;
(b) by promotion through the Commission from amongst permanent Inspectors. Group III and such permanent Cooperative Supervisors and village-level workers who have passed Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or an examination declared by the Governor as equivalent thereto or who are covered by GO No.3084/XXXV-A-129-NES-58 dated 14-6-1961/ 15-6-1961.
The above provisions also clarified the intendment of the legislature that they can come to the government service only through the procedure established by the Rules and Regulations, as government servants. In other words, they are recruited according to the procedure provided in (a) and (b) of Part III of the Rules. We have already noticed that in the Cooperative Regulations there is no provision for pensionary benefits. It has also been noticed that Cooperative Supervisors were under the control of the Cooperative Federation Authority.
73. In the opinion of this Court, the period served as Cooperative Supervisor is not liable to be added for reckoning the pensionary benefit of retired Cooperative Inspectors, Grade-II.
74. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioners have approached this Court after the retirement from service claiming benefit of grant of notional promotion with effect from the date their juniors have been provided benefit for reckoning the qualifying service for the grant of pension.
75. The controversy involved in the present bunch of writ petitions was duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7340-7341 of 2003, State of U.P. and others v. Roshan Singh and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:
"All these appeals, arise out of the similar facts, are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity, we take facts from C.A. Nos.7340-7341/2003. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The respondents Roshan Singh and three others were working as Co-operative Supervisors under the Co-operative Department. According to the relevant Rules the post of Co-operative Supervisor is a non-Governmental post. They retired from service on 31.5.1996, 31.1.1996, 31.1.1997 and 31.1.1996 respectively. They filed Writ Petition No.3947 (SS) of 1997 seeking promotion to the post of Co-operative Inspector, Group-II (Governmental post) with effect from 7.4.1978 on the ground that on the same date the persons who were juniors to them had been promoted. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by an order dated 24.8.2000 following the decision rendered in Bengali Prasad Sharma's case decided on 3.5.1995 in Writ Petition No.13240 (SS) of 1990. In Bengali Prasad's case he had filed Writ Petition No.13240 (SS) of 1990 while he was in service. It is also not disputed fact that Bengali Prasad was holding the post of Co-operative Inspector, Group-II which is a Governmental post while he filed the writ petition. In that view of the matter the High Court by its order dated 3.5.1995 allowed the writ petition filed by Bengali Prasad directing that he should be given notional promotion with effect from 7.4.1978 and he would be entitled pensionary benefits from 7.4.1978. Learned single Judge has committed a grave error in law by equating the case of the respondents Roshan Singh and three others with the case of Bengali Prasad. It is now well settled principle of law that unequal cannot be treated equally. As already stated, the respondents Roshan Singh and three others were not holding the post of Co-operative Inspector, Group-II which is a Governmental post when they retired from services, therefore, the High Court was not justified in allowing writ petition and granting the pensionary benefits with effect from 7.4.1978 as has been done in Bengali Prasad's case.
Secondly, the respondents filed the writ petition in July, 1997 after they had retired from services. Even from this Count they could not have been granted any relief sought for in the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court also committed a grave error of law and facts by confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge, without assigning any reason. Civil Appeal Nos.7340-7341 and 7315-7316 of 2003. In the result these appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed and the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are quashed and set aside.
These appeals are allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed. However, the parties are asked to bear their own costs. Civil Appeal Nos.7317 and 7319 of 2003. Consequently, these appeals filed by the respondents are dismissed with no order as to costs."
76. The Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in regard to grant of notional promotion to the Cooperative Supervisor from the date their juniors were granted notional promotion by quoting the relevant portion of the judgment, has recorded as under:
"In the light of the judgment referred above, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 22nd January, 2002 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition is also dismissed."
77. Although the petitioners have retired from the post of Cooperative Inspector, Grade-II, but they have approached this Court for granting the benefits of judgments rendered in Writ Petition No.13240 (SS) of 1980 titled 'Bungali Prasad v. State of U.P. and others' and Writ Petition No.3947 (SS) of 1997 titled 'Roshan Singh v. State of U.P. and others' after the great delay.
78. The Hon'ble Apex Court while examinaing the matter in the case of Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 321, has dealt with several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of laches in approaching the Court seeking certain reliefs and in this regard, consideration has been made in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment which reads as under:
"12. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that Article 14 is a positive concept. The Constitution does not envisage enforcement of the equality clause where a person has got an undue benefit by reason of an illegal act. In Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan, this Court held as under:
"9....... Article 14 of the Constitution of India has a positive concept. Equality, it is trite, cannot be claimed in illegality. Even otherwise the writ peition as also the review petition have rightly not been entertained on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant."
13. The Court in a given case may be inclined to pass similar order as has been done in the earlier case on the basis of equality or otherwise. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may, however, be denied on the ground of delay and laches.
14. It is now well settled that who claims equity must enforce his claim within a reasonable time. For the said proposition, amongst others, we may notice a decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Govt. Of W.B. v. Taurn K. Roy, wherein it has been opined as under:
"34. The respondents furthermore are not even entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and laches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar. The plea of delay, which Mr. Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law." (emphasis supplied)
15. The question yet again came up for consideration before this Court in NDMC v. Pan Singh wherein it has been observed as under:
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themseleves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been enterained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
16. The said princple was reiterated in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala in the following terms:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that ''delay defates equity'. The Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the juddgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage."
79. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7340-7341 (State of U.P. and others v. Roshan Singh and others) occasioned to consider the similar controversy as have been involved in the present bunch of writ petitions and on overall consideration, it has been recorded that writ petitioners claimed benefits of notional promotion after they had retired from services, therefore, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and in speical appeal were quashed and set aside. The parity of claim may be made within a reasonable time. The explanation furnished that due to non-availability of orders of notional promotion to the juniors, the petitioners could not be filed within a reasonable time, is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
80. This Court upon examination of provisions applicable to the case of petitioners, has also taken notice that the post of Cooperative Supervisor is not pensionable, therefore, the same cannot be added for recokening qualifying service for the grant of pension.
81. Writ Petition Nos.8632(SS) of 2010, 6378 (SS) of 2011, 2695 (SS) of 2014, 3037 (SS) of 2011, 2923 (SS) of 2015, 1780 (SS) of 2015, 1242 (SS) of 2012, 1490 (SS) of 2012, 4311 (SS) of 2014, 3198 (SS) of 2014, 7660 (SS) of 2014, 7626 (SS) of 2014, 4918 (SS) of 2012, 3753 (SS) of 2007, 7769 (SS) of 2013, 5553 (SS) of 2012, 2257 (SS) of 2010, 8633 (SS) of 2010, 7208 (SS) of 2013, 7232 (SS) of 2010, 3174 (SS) of 2011, 3106 (SS) of 2011 and 3013 (SS) of 2015 pertain in regard to claim set up before this Court for issuance of direction to grant notional promotion with effect from juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion. In this regard, I have examined the claim set up in the writ petitions which reflects that the juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion on the post of Co-operative Supervisor Grade-II/Assistant Development Officer Co-operative. The petitioners were not vigilent to approach this Court claiming the benefits granted to their juniors. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the same controversy in Civil Appeal No.7340-7341 (State of U.P. and others v. Roshan Singh and others) which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court, recorded that the petitioners who are not vigilent to their rights and approach this Court after a long spell of time, are not entitled to get relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, in terms of judgment referred above, the petitioners, who have approached this Court after a long delay, are not entitled to get relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitions of the petitioners whose petitions have been referred above are dismissed.
82. In some of the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.6550 (SS) of 2014, 670 (SS) of 2008, 1613 (SS) of 2008, 1021 (SS) of 2007, 2771 (SS) of 2013, 6913 (SS) of 2004, 2949 (SS) of 2010, 6549 (SS) of 2011, 4397 (SS) of 2011 and 7561 (SS) of 2014 the petitioners claim for the grant of certain benefits.
83. On examination of the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioners have been provided certain benefits and are claiming scheme of Annual Carrer Progression and in this regard, they have approached the competent authority and the claim set up by them are lying pending consideration, therefore, this Court is of the opinion, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petitions pending any further.
84. Accordingly, the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.6550 (SS) of 2014, 670 (SS) of 2008, 1613 (SS) of 2008, 1021 (SS) of 2007, 2771 (SS) of 2013, 6913 (SS) of 2004, 2949 (SS) of 2010, 6549 (SS) of 2011, 4397 (SS) of 2011 and 7561 (SS) of 2014 are finally disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and to pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.