Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 943 of 2013 Appellant :- Yogendra Narain Sharma @ Yogendra Bhardwaj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar,Maithali Sharan Pipersenia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.S. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ-A No. 23480 of 2007; Yogendra Narain Sharma alias Yogendra Bhardwaj Versus State of U. P. and others by which aforementioned writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming payment of salary for the post of IInd Grade Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 on the ground that he was working as daily wager Class-IV employee in Jal Sansthan, Agra, was dismissed holding interalia as hereunder:
"In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Annexure No.5 and the abovementioned annexures are forged documents, however the correctness of Annexure No.6 order dated 23.02.1999 in favour of the Gajendra Singh has not been denied. Learned counsel for the Jal Sansthan, Agra argued that prior to 23.02.1999, the petitioner was working as daily wager class IV employee, hence he was confirmed on the said post by the said order and even thought Gajendra Singh was also working as daily wager class IV employee, however the work of clerk was being taken from him, hence he was regularized on the post of Second Grade clerk.
As far as petitioner is concerned no relief can be granted to him. (Relief claimed through the writ petition is that the respondent no.2 may be directed to pay salary to the petitioner as fixed by its Chairman vide its order dated 21.05.2002 Annexure No.8, of the post of clerk w.e.f. 23.2.1999 with interest). Even if it is held that the order dated 23.2.1999 Annexure No.5 to the writ petition and other orders were in fact issued, petitioner is not entitled to any benefit for the reason that the order dated 23.2.1999 even issued is utterly, illegal and without jurisdiction. The Jal Sansthan is neither a private limited company nor household of the Chairman. Jal Sansthans have been established under Section 18 of U.P. Water Supply and sewerage Act, 1975. They are government instrumentalities. Chairman cannot appoint or remove an employee like a domestic servant. By maximum confirmation could be on the post of class IV. Petitioner or any one else cannot be regularized or confirmed on higher post.
However, the Court is of the opinion that the order in favour of the Gajendra Singh is also utterly, illegal for the same reasons. No one claim parity on the basis of an illegal order.
As Gajendra Singh is not a party in this writ petition, hence his appointment cannot be cancelled. However, the respondent no.2 is directed to immediately issue show cause notice to Gajendra Singh as to why he should not be reverted to class IV post and after hearing him suitable order must be passed by the Chairman, Jal Santhan, Agra.
There is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed with the above direction."
When this matter was taken up today, we are informed that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 14.5.2013 qua Gajendra Singh and allowed him to work till he attained superannuation.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a representation for the redressal of his grievance before the respondent no. 2 on 27.2.2006, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 15 to the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, but the same has not been decided till date and hence a direction be issued to the respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon.
Sri G. S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
In view of the above, we, while refusing to interfere with the impugned order, dispose of this special appeal with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's aforementioned representation pending before him.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 HR