Heard Sri S.P. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The case set-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Collection Amin on 01.10.1992. The opposite parties have restrained the petitioner on 01.06.1995 from discharging the duties without having any cogent reason to that effect, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.1964 (S/S) of 1995 wherein the interim order has been granted in his favour on 16.02.1996. Under the strength of interim order, the petitioner started discharging his duties and he continuously served in the department till 12.09.2017. However, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2017.
Feeling aggrieved out of order dated 12.09.2017, the petitioner preferred a special appeal but the said special appeal was withdrawn seeking liberty to file a review petition and thereafter the petitioner filed a review application before this Court. The said review application was decided by this Court on 13.08.2018 treating the said review application as infructuous for the reason that the then learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that the department has already adjusted the petitioner in service on 08.10.2004 and since then the petitioner is regularly discharging his duties, therefore, the matter has become infructuous.
In nutshell, the order dated 12.09.2017 was recalled to the extent that the writ petition of the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No.1964 (S/S) of 1995 has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as soon as the petitioner has supplied the copy of order dated 13.08.2018 passed by this Court in review application, the Chief Review Officer, Ayodhya has passed the impugned order dated 26.03.2019, which is contained as Annexure No.17 to the writ petition, indicating therein that the petitioner has got order in the review application placing wrong facts that he has already been adjusted in the department on 08.10.2004 whereas the petitioner was not adjusted in the department on 08.10.2004. The impugned order further reads that since the writ petition of the petitioner has been rendered infructuous, therefore, he may not be re-engaged in the department.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in similar facts and circumstances one Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh whose Writ Petition No.1963 (S/S) of 1995 was dismissed on the same date i.e. 12.09.2017 and the review application was decided on 13.08.2008 in the same manner inasmuch as the statement was given in his writ petition also that Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh has been adjusted in the department since 08.10.2004 and the department has passed the order dated 28.01.2019 in favour of Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, which is contained as Annexure No.11 to the writ petition, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner, whose facts and circumstances are absolutely identical with Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, be treated similar to him and the same benefited may be provided to the petitioner.
I have perused the order dated 28.01.2019 passed in favour of Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh and the authority concerned i.e. the Director, Land Acquisition, Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow has himself stated that Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh was adjusted in the department on 08.10.2004 and since then he was continuously discharging his duties, however, he has not discharged his duties with effect from 01.12.2017 to 18.12.2017 and for that period he is not entitled for salary in view of the principles "no work no pay."
After perusing the aforesaid order, I find that the facts and circumstances of the case of Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh and the present petitioner are not identically same inasmuch as the department has not accepted in the present case that the present petitioner has been adjusted on 08.10.2004 as the specific recital has been given in the impugned order dated 26.03.2019.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that in the counter affidavit the authorities have not disputed the fact regarding the similarity of Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh and the present petitioner in clear words.
Be that as it may, since the review order has been passed on the basis of fact that the present petitioner has been adjusted in the department on 08.10.2004, which has categorically been denied in the impugned order dated 26.03.2019, therefore, it appears that before the review Court the correct fact was not placed. Therefore, the petitioner may not get any benefit out of the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by this Court in review application.
So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue of the present petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh is identical and same and the Competent Authority should not discriminate the petitioner with Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, for that the petitioner may raise his grievance before the Competent Authority by submitting a fresh representation taking all pleas and grounds which are available with him enclosing therewith the copies of the relevant documents/ orders of the Court which are necessary for disposal of his representation within a period of 15 days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner before the Competent Authority within the aforesaid stipulated time, the Competent Authority shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and that order should be speaking and reasoned one, with expedition, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith.
It is made clear that the Competent Authority shall pass independent order without there being influenced from any observations made here-in-above and this Court has not entered into the merits of the issue so far as the fresh order would be passed by the Competent Authority.
However, at this stage, I am not finding any illegality in order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Ahyodhya, therefore, the aforesaid oder dated 26.03.2019 has not been interfered with but the Competent Authority shall also not be influenced with the aforesaid observations while taking independent decision on the representation of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]