Bharatram vs State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vivek Saran, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent.

The Petitioner claims a mandate to the Respondents to extend the benefit of a judgment dated 14.10.1998 rendered by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 659 of 1996 (Angad Kumar Singh v. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Ors.).

It is claimed that in the tentative list prepared on 8th of August 1994, Alok Kumar and Gupteshwar Nath Singh were shown juniors to the Petitioner and they challenged their placement in the seniority list before the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition on the ground that their seniority should not be fixed according to the amended Rule 23 of the U.P. Nirman Nigam Limited (General Service) Service Rules, 1980. The claim was accepted and it was held that since the appointment of those persons were prior to the amendment of the rules, their seniority should be fixed according to the rules and therefore the claim was allowed and they were accordingly placed at the relevant places in the seniority list.

This petition has been filed with the allegation that the departmental promotion committee is to meet shortly and the Petitioner would not be given the benefit of the said judgment. Apart from a bald assertion, there is nothing on record to show that the Respondents would not comply with the law laid down by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, this petition is premature at this stage. Rejected.