Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21864 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vipin Chandra Bhatnagar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kant Dixit,Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The writ petition is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage on the consent of the parties as per the Rules of the Court.
Petitioner retired from the post of Stenographer of Moradabad Judgeship on 31 May 2017. By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 26.5.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Chairman Administrative Committee, District Court, Moradabad).
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to concerned respondent no. 3 (Chairman Administrative Committee, District Court, Moradabad) for consider the grievance to the petitioner in regard to providing A.C.P. benefit to the petitioner for the satisfactory service of the petitioner for the post of clerk up to stenographer, during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court."
The third respondent, Chairman Administrative Committee/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Moradabad noted in the impugned order that the claim of the petitioner for benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) was duly considered and rejected by the Committee in its report dated 1 July 2014, which was approved by the District Judge, Moradabad on 3 July 2014, hence, the subsequent application of the petitioner to review and reconsider the matter afresh has been rejected by the impugned order. The issue of adverse entries granted to the petitioner in rejecting his claim for A.C.P. was considered by the then Administrative Committee.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the earlier report of the Administrative Committee and the approval order dated 3 July 2014 passed by the second respondent, District Judge, Moradabad was not challenged by the petitioner in any proceeding, nor is the order being assailed in the instant petition.
In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it has been averred that petitioner was warned vide entry dated 14 January 1988, similarly entry was recorded on 22 April 1988. Vide order dated 14 February 1990 two annual increments was permanently withheld and petitioner was given censure entry. Further on 13 April 1990 it was recorded that the behaviour and conduct of the petitioner is not of high quality and shows no interest towards his work. On 4 March 1993 one increment of the petitioner was stopped; petitioner was issued warning on 7 November 2006; vide order dated 24 May 2010 petitioner was warned and directed to improve his typing and shorthand; vide entry dated 5 April 2013 petitioner was found unable to perform his duties due to his failing health.
In the backdrop of the adverse entries, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to explain from the material brought on record, as to how, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of A.C.P. which is dependent upon the record and conduct of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed both on the ground of laches and merit.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 S.Prakash