Veer Singh Gosain vs The State of U.P.

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Sudhanshu Dhuliya, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to implement the Government Order dated 29.07.1992 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) and give a retrospective benefit to the petitioner by appointing/promoting him as Accountant with effect from 01.01.1986. Further prayer has bene made for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give all other benefits to the petitioner, to which he has been deprived so far.

Briefly stated, according to the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Planning Department, U.P., on 03.09.1969 and the petitioner joined as Junior Clerk in Zila Parishad on 01.10.1970.

In the year, 1983, petitioner was promoted from Junior Clerk to the post of Assistant Accountant in Zila Parishad at Pauri Garhwal.

Petitioner has submitted that till 1986, the entire account work of Basic Shiksha Parishad in district was maintained by the Accounts Department of Zila Parisahd. Till 1986, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in a district was not provided with a separate accounts organization. A separate Accounts Organization was given to the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the year, 1986. A Govt. Order was issued in the year, 1986 being G.O. No. 6180 dated 07.08.1986 to the following effect:

(a) it created a separate Accounts Department in Basic Shiksha Parishad;

(b) for the effective management of the said Accounts Department, the following posts were created all over U.P. these posts were--

(i) Accounts Officer 56 posts (one in each district) (ii) Accountant 168 posts (three in each district) (iii) Assistant Accountant 112 posts (two in each district) (iv) Junior Accounts Clerk 192 posts (one post for every 1500 teachers in each district) (v) Junior Clerk 156 posts (one in each district) (vi) Typists 56 posts (one in each district)

In paragraph 10 of the aforesaid Government Order, it has clearly been mentioned that out of three posts of accountant being created in each district, one each was to be filled from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Zila Parishad. Relevant paragraph of the said G.O. is quoted below:

10- nksuks oS;fDr ystj [kkrks dh o mi;qZDRk ''kkldh; vkgj.k o forj.k ls lEcfU/kr dS''kcqdks o vU; ys[kk &vfHkys[kks dh iksfLVax o j[k j[kko dk iwjk nkf;Ro ftues nksusk oS;fDrd ystj [kkrks es nSfud bfr''ks"kks ds fo?kVu fooj.k i= o ekfld o okf"kZd bfr''ks"kks ds foLr`r fo?kVu i=ks dks cukus dk fo''ks"k egRo gksxk A

At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Assistant Accountant in the accounts Department of the Zila Patishad at Uttar Kashi in the pay scale of Rs. 472-735/= and in compliance of the aforesaid Government Order the petitioner was ordered to join as Accountant in the accounts Department of Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Kashi, which was joined by the petitioner on 05.10.1988. Since then the petitioner is working as Accountant in Basic Shikhar Parishad. At that time, the petitioner was the senior most accountant and had two Assistant Accountants and other employees were under him.

Thereafter, on 29.07.1992, an order was passed by which certain posts in all the departments of Accounts in U.P. were reorganized/merged.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the said G.O., out of the total posts of Accountants and Assistant Accounts, only 20% posts were to remain as Assistant Accountant and the rest were to be upgraded as Accountants with retrospective effect from 01.01.1986. Subsequently, a large number of Assistant Accounts became Accountants with retrospective effect and benefit was given since 01.01.1986.

Petitioner has submitted that all the same whereas other departmental head have implemented the said order, but Zila Parishad has not implemented the same was a result of which, persons junior to the petitioner (either from the office of the District Inspector of Schools or Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the Organization) have become his seniors in the inter-se-seniority, as they were given the benefit of the said order since 01.01.1986, but the petitioner has not.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner had lien in his parent department i.e. Zila Parishad at the relevant time and the said department has not implemented the G.O., the petitioner has suffered a severe loss.

The petitioner was confirmed as Account in Accounts Department of the Basic Shiksha Parishad on 01.04.1994. Hence, up to 31.0.3.1994, the petitioner had lien in his parent department in Zila Parishad Accounts Organziation.

It appears from the inter-se-seniority list of Assistant Accountant in Zila Parishad U.P. that the petitioner was at SI. No. 112 out of 137 Assistant Accountants and up to SI. No. 116 the Assistant Accountants have become Accountants w.e.f. 01.01.1986.

The submission of the petitioner is that in view of the above, as he is at Serial No. 112, he is also entitled to et the benefit of the said G.O.

The grievance of the petitioner is that due to non-implementation of the G.O. by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has not been made Accountant. It has not affected him financially but has also placed him below his juniors in the inter-se-seniority list and has further affected his chances for an early promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.

Petitioner moved a representation on 05.01.1996 before the respondent No. 2 by registered post stating that he is not being given the benefit of G.O. dated 29.07.1992 and has not been made as Accountant with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 01.01.1986 as other Assistant Accountants in other departments. When nothing was done on the representation filed by the petitioner, he moved a reminder on 14.02.1996. Again a reminder was sent on 09.04.1996.

Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by the petitioner through his counsel u/s 80 C.P.C., wherein entire facts relating to service conditions of the petitioner and the treatment being meted out by the respondent No. 2 were stated.

On 24.09.1996, a reply was given by the respondent No. 2 stating that the case of the petitioner has been referred to the State Authorities and it was further stated that Zila Parishads has not given effect to the government order.

A counter affidavit has been filed, where it has been stated as under:

14- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 13 dk dFku Lohdkj ugh gS A D;ksfd ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dk;Zky; ds ys[kkdkj vkSj csfld f''k{kk ifj"kn dk;Zy;d ds ys[kkdkj vkSj csfld f''k{kk ifj"kn dk;Zky; ds ys[kkdkj mRrj izns''k ''kklu ds f''k{kk foHkkx ds v/khu gS vkSj bl foHkkx ds ys[kkdkj mRrj izns''k ds foRr foHkkx ds v/khu gS bl foHkkx ds ys[kkdkjks ij foRr foHkkx ds ''kklukns''k ykxw gksrs gS vkSj csfld f''k{kk ifj"kn rFkk ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd ds dk;kZy; ds ys[kkdkjks ij f''k{kk foHkkx ds ''kklukns''k ykxw gksrs gS Af''k{kk foHkkx ds ''kklukns''kks dsk bl foHkkx ds ys[kkdkjks ij ykxw fd;k tkuk vfu;fer gS A

15- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 14 dk dFku Lohdkj ugh gS A D;ksfd csfld f''k{kk ifj"kn dh T;s"Brk csfld f''k{kk ifj"kn ds ys[kkdkjks dh T;s"Brk ls vyx gS A ''kklu ds foRr �lsok,� vuqHkkx&3 ds ''kklukns''k la[;k ,l&3&1989@nl&94&100 ^^56?k 89 fnukad 27 tuojh 1995 ftldh ''kiFki= ds lkFk layXud&1 ds :i es nkf[ky fd;k tk jgk gS A

Looking to the genuine grievance of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and implement the G.O. dated 29.07.1992 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) within a period two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.