Ram Chandra Singh vs Director Commissioner of Consolidation and Others

Rakesh Tiwari and Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ.—The special appeal before us challenges the judgment and order dated 2.04.2004 passed by His Lordship sitting singly in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991 Ram Chandra Singh v. Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and Ors. as well as judgment and order dated 23.9.1991 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21664 of 1991. The Appellant has assailed the judgment and orders on the grounds that since more than three years the Appellant had worked on the post of Lekhpal in the Consolidation Department and there being nothing adverse to his work and conduct, hence according to Government Order issued on 4. 11.1979, he was entitled to be regularised on the post of Lekhpal.

Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Appellant has laid emphasis on the point that the services of one adhoc employee cannot be replaced by another adhoc employee. According to him the Appellant had been appointed in the vacancy of Lekhpal caused by promotion of Sri Har Prasad Saxena on the post of Consolidator. He submits that in order to terminate the services of the Appellant, Sri Har Prasad Saxena was reverted for a single day i.e. 8.2.1991 so that the services of the Appellant may be terminated on the same day. It is stated that after termination of his service Har Prasad Saxena was again given officiating appointment on the very next date i.e. 9.2.1991 on the higher post of Consolidator for a period of 42 days vide Annexure-8 to the appeal and on the vacancy so caused by promotion of Sri Har Prasad Saxena one Sri Chandra Pal was given adhoc appointment as Lekhpal instead of Appellant vide order dated 27.3.1991 for a period of 42 days Annexure-9 to the appeal. It is well settled that both of these persons are continuing on their respective posts till date.

It is also submited that several persons junior to the Appellant who were working as officiating adhoc Lekhpal have been allowed to continue on their posts while the Appellant who had put for more than three years of satisfactory service as Lekhpal has not been continued malafide. It is stated that it was incumbent upon the officers to have allowed the Appellant to work as Lekhpal once Sri Har Prasad Saxena was promoted again on 9.2.1991 for a period of 42 days as Consolidator.

It is lastly contended that the Appellant had filed representation in pursuance of order of High Court before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Badaun but his representation was rejected by vide order dated 15.5.1991 on irrelevant considerations on the ground that the Appellant was overage as he had attained the age of 36 years and 4 months of age at that relevant time.

It appears from the record that the Appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991 Ram Chandra Singh v. Director of Consolidation Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and Ors. in which he has claimed that he had worked on adhoc basis uptill 18th October, 1987 on the basis of order dated 28th May, 1987 on the post of Lekhpal (Consolidation) in which vacancy had been caused due to promotion of one Sri Shiv Dutt. In that petition, the present Appellant had claimed that he had worked upto 7th February, 1990 and vide order dated 8th February, 1990 he was subsequently issued an appointment letter for a period of three months again in the vacancy caused by promotion of Sri Har Prasad Saxena as stated earlier. In that petition, the present Appellant had claimed that though Sri Har Prasad Saxena had not been reverted, the salary of the Appellant has been stopped since December, 1990 and since he has worked for more than three years he is entitled to be regularised under the Government Order dated 4th November, 1979. In this backdrop Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991 was filed for a direction to pay salary to the Appellant from December, 1990 and to treat him as a regular Lekhpal in the department.

During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991 the Appellant filed another Writ Petition No. 14362 of 1991 on 18th April, 1991. In that writ petition he did not make any mention about having filed Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991, rather it was averred that as Sri Har Prasad Saxena was reverted to his substantive post, the adhoc appointment of the present Appellant was terminated vide order dated 8th February, 1991. He again claimed regularization under Government Order dated 4th November, 1979. The petition was disposed of finally with an observation for the Appellant to make a representation to Respondent No. 1 i.e. Director Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow that Petitioner may also be considered for the post of Lekhpal which he held earlier and which according to him had fallen vacant by virtue of order dated 9.2.1991 promoting Sri Har Prasad Saxena for a period of 42 days to work as Consolidator. The judgment provided that " in case the submissions of the Petitioner do not find favour with the Respondent No. 1, then a reasoned order will be passed by him but if the Respondent No. 1 accepts the representation, then the Petitioner will be given officiating appointment as Lekhpal immediately thereafter.

Until the disposal of the representation of the Petitioner, the post of Lekhpal, if not already filled, will not be filled in by any one else." It also appears from record that a third Writ Petition No. 21664 of 1991 was filed by the Appellant on 25th July, 1991 without any mention by the Appellant that he had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991. It was averred in Writ Petition No. 21664 of 1991 that service of the present Appellant had been terminated by the order dated 8th February, 1991 and being aggrieved he had filed Writ Petition No. 14362 of 1991 which was disposed of by the Court by means of judgment and order dated 24th April, 1991. It was also averred therein that he had submitted representation dated 3rd May, 1991 which was rejected by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation by means of order dated 15th May, 1991 and that he was entitled for regularization under the Government Order dated 4th November, 1979. This third writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23rd September, 1991 observing as under :

Petitioner in the instant petition, was appointed for a limited period by way of stop gap arrangement in the vacancy occurring on account of officiating promotion of certain persons who have since been reverted to their substantive posts, as is evident from the order dated 15th of May 1991. Annexure 7 to the writ petition also shows that the Petitioner was appointed in place of Sri Shiv Dutt with effect from 1.1.1988. Shiv Dutt as stated in the impugned order dated 15.1.91 has been reverted to his substantive post, hence the Petitioner has no right to the post to which he was appointed in stop gap arrangement. Besides his termination does not entail any civil consequences.

In the result, the petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

By judgment and order dated 2.4.2004 impugned in the present special appeal, Court observed that the controversy stood concluded against the Appellant as nothing was brought on record to indicate whether any appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 1991. The Court while dismissing the Writ Petition No. 4811 of 1991 has not only considered the judgment and reliefs claimed by the present Appellant in those writ petitions but also recorded a finding that all the contentions in the representation dated 3rd May, 1991 had been raised by the present Appellant, which was filed pursuant to the directions issued by the Court in Writ Petition No. 19362 of 1991 and had been rejected by the authority vide order dated 15th May, 1991. As regards the order dated 8th February, 1991 and order dated 15th May, 1991 both were challenged in Writ Petition No. 21664 of 1991 which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 23rd September, 1991, which had become final. As according to counsel for the Appellant no appeal was filed against the aforesaid orders. This Court then concluded " for all practical purposes, the present petition did not survive after the decision dated 15th May 1991 on the representation filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has through the amendment application made an effort to reopen the issues, which had been concluded. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to do so.

The present petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no no order as to costs.

Dt.2.4.2004 NSC Sd/- Dilip Gupta, J."

It is, therefore, apparent from the history of the litigation of the present Appellant above that the issues raised by him in the present appeal stand concluded and had become final. Even otherwise, it is an admitted fact and apparent from record that appointment of the Appellant was purely for a specified period as local arrangement, which somehow continued beyond the period specified in the appointment order. Once Sri Har Prasad Saxena was reverted by order dated 8th February, 1991, and temporary adhoc appointment of the Appellant were terminated his adhoc services came to a conclusive end. He did not remain in service thereafter to have been continued in the adhoc/temporary vacancy of 42 days caused by officiating promotion of Sri Har Prasad Saxena. Sri Chandra Pal was instead appointed on adhoc basis for a period of 42 days vide Annexure-9 to the special appeal. On his services having come to an end on 8th February, 1991, the Appellant who was an adhoc employee under local arrangement would have no right to claim regularization or continuation in service dehors the Rules. Since Sri Har Prasad Saxena is still continuing as local interim arrangement on the post of Consolidator, therefore, he still holds his lien on the post of Lekhpal upon which Sri Chandra Pal is working as an interim arrangement. The Appellant has also not shown malafide intention from the records except making a bald statement in this regard.

In this view of the matter, the services of the Appellant cannot be regularised on the post of Lekhpal. It may also be mentioned here that in writ petition the High Court cannot grant relief of regularization. At the most the High Court can only direct for consideration of the case which was ordered by the High Court in writ petition filed and the representation filed by the Appellant has already been rejected. For there reason there is no case to interfere in the impugned judgment. The special appeal stands dismissed accordingly.