# Abdul Rauf v. U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 177
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-07
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 279 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-rauf-v-u-p-coop-fed-ltd-ors-46237
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Punishment of Dismissal
- Dismissal order was quashed in earlier
writ petition - Effect - Consequential
service benefit, revision of pay scale etc. -
Entitlement - Held, quashing of the
punishment
order
would
result
in
restoration of the position as it stood on
the date of passing of the order - It shall
be treated as if the punishment order was
not in existence and in that case, the
petitioner would be entitled for all service
benefits. (Para 29)
B. Service Law - Consequential benefit -
Meaning
and
Scope
-
Consequential
benefits are such benefits which are easily
quantifiable, namely, those in the nature of
loss of salary, emoluments and other
benefits - The reliefs in respect of revision
of pay scale by providing the annual
increments, grant of first promotional pay
scale
and
the
benefit
of
Sixth
Pay
Commission on the basis of revised pay
scale
come
within
the
purview
of
'emoluments and other benefits' - Colonel
Ran Singh Rudee's case followed. (Para 34)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

10 All. Abdul Rauf Vs. U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors.
177
(2021)10ILR A177
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J

Service Single No. 279 of 2020

Abdul Rauf ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Apoorva Tewari, Aditya Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shireesh Kumar

A. Service Law - Punishment of Dismissal
- Dismissal order was quashed in earlier
writ petition - Effect - Consequential
service benefit, revision of pay scale etc. -
Entitlement - Held, quashing of the
punishment
order
would
result
in
restoration of the position as it stood on
the date of passing of the order - It shall
be treated as if the punishment order was
not in existence and in that case, the
petitioner would be entitled for all service
benefits. (Para 29)
B. Service Law - Consequential benefit -
Meaning
and
Scope
-
Consequential
benefits are such benefits which are easily
quantifiable, namely, those in the nature of
loss of salary, emoluments and other
benefits - The reliefs in respect of revision
of pay scale by providing the annual
increments, grant of first promotional pay
scale
and
the
benefit
of
Sixth
Pay
Commission on the basis of revised pay
scale
come
within
the
purview
of
'emoluments and other benefits' - Colonel
Ran Singh Rudee's case followed. (Para 34)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Colonel Ran Singh Rudee;
(2018) 8 SCC 53
2. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs Church of
South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras; (1992) 3 SCC 1
3. Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 1989
Supp (1) SCC 416
4. U.O.I.& ors. Vs Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh
Kadyan & anr.; (2000) 6 SCC 698
5. Chief Regional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Siraj Uddin Khan; (2019)
7 SCC 564
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh
Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shireesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed following
reliefs:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very
kindly be pleased to:

a) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
06.07.2018 and 21.07.2018 annexed as
Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this
writ petition;

b) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to revise
the salary of the petitioner by providing the
annual increments to the petitioner from
01.02.1999 till 31.07.2017 and to grant the
first promotional pay scale to the petitioner
w.e.f. the year 2004 and further grant the
benefits of the sixth pay commission on the
basis of the revised salary;
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

c) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to revised
the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the
basis of the revised salary as aforesaid;

d) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to pay the
arrears due consequent to the revision of
salary and gratuity as aforesaid;

e) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to pay the
petitioner his provident fund dues for the
period 2009 to 2017 and arrears of salary
for the period the petitioner remained
under suspension;

f) To issue any other writ, order
or direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just, fit and proper in the interest of
justice.

g)
To award
costs
to
the
petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of
Junior Engineer in the U.P. Cooperative
Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to
as "Federation" in short) on ad-hoc basis on
6.2.1984. Services of the petitioner were
regularized on 19.4.1991.

4. On 22.8.2002, the petitioner was
placed under suspension in contemplation
of disciplinary proceedings. The charge
sheet dated 29.11.2002 was rescinded and a
fresh charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner on 14.2.2003. The petitioner
replied to the charge sheet on 30.9.2003
under protest as he was not afforded an
opportunity to inspect the documents.

5. On 6.2.2004, the suspension of the
petitioner was revoked and he resumed his
regular duties. The petitioner was paid only
50% of the salary as subsistence allowance
during the period of his suspension i.e.
from 22.8.2002 to 6.2.2004.

6. On 4.2.2009, the petitioner was
dismissed from service of the Federation
and recovery to the tune of Rs.17,52,764.58
was directed to be made from him.

7. Feeling aggrieved from the order of
dismissal dated 4.2.2009, the petitioner
filed a writ petition before this Court
bearing Service Single No.2954 of 2009;
Abdul
Rauf
Vs.
U.P.
Co-Operative
Federation Ltd. & Another.

8. During pendency of aforesaid writ
petition, the petitioner reached the age of
superannuation on 31.7.2017.

9. This Court allowed the writ petition
of
the
petitioner
and
quashed
the
punishment order 4.2.2009 vide judgment
and order dated 18.12.2017. The aforesaid
order is enclosed as Annexure No.6 to the
writ petition. Operative portion of the
judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 reads
as under:-

"This Court having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, is of
the considered opinion that the impugned
order being illegal and arbitrary calls for
the issuance of a writ of certiorari and
accordingly
the
order
contained
in
Annexure-1 issued on 4.2.2009 is hereby
quashed
with
all
consequences.
The
petitioner would be entitled to 50% salary
from the date of dismissal from service up
to the date of retirement. The pensionery
benefits admissible to the petitioner shall,
however, remain unaffected and he shall be
treated as if he was in service up to the
date of attaining the age of superannuation.
The consequential benefits shall be paid
10 All. Abdul Rauf Vs. U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors.
179
not later than a period of three months
from the date of service of a certified copy
of this judgement.

The writ petition is allowed with
no order as to cost."

10. As per Sri Tewari, this Court not
only quashed the punishment order dated
4.2.2009 but directed that the petitioner
shall be entitled for all consequences. This
Court further provides that the petitioner
would be entitled to 50% salary from the
date of dismissal to the date of his
retirement. It further provides that the
pensionery benefits admissible to the
petitioner shall remain unaffected and he
shall be treated as if he was in service upto
the
date
of
attaining
the
age
of
superannuation.

11. Therefore, as per Sri Tewari, this
Court
has
categorically
clarified
the
benefits extended to the petitioner pursuant
to
the
judgment
and
order
dated
18.12.2017. Sri Tiwari has informed that
the Federation has not challenged the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
18.12.2017 by filing special appeal before
this Court or by filing Special Leave to
Appeal before the Apex Court. As a matter
of fact, the aforesaid judgment has attained
finality.

12. Sri Tewari has submitted that
immediately after receiving the certified
copy of the judgment and order dated
18.12.2017, the petitioner served the
judgment upon opposite party no.2 on
22.12.2017 but no compliance has been
made. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a
reminder representation on 24.5.2018 but to
no
avail.
Under
such
compelling
circumstances,
the
petitioner
filed
a
contempt
petition
bearing
Contempt
No.1544 of 2018, Abdul Rauf Vs. Pramod
Kumar Upadhyaya, M.D., U.P. Coop.
Federation Ltd. & Anr.

13. After service of contempt notice
upon the opposite party, opposite party
no.2 passed an order dated 6.7.2018
whereby it has been decided that the
petitioner would be paid arrears of salary
on the basis of salary as drawn by the
petitioner on 1.2.1999, effectively denying
the petitioner all pay revisions made
available
to
other
identically
placed
employees of the Federation.

14. On 21.7.2018, the arrears of salary
have been worked out without granting the
petitioner benefit of all pay revisions made
available to other identically situated
employees of the Federation. On 23.7.2018,
the
petitioner
was
paid
a
sum
of
Rs.11,15,558/- as arrears of salary and
retiral dues.

15. On 1.8.2019, the contempt notices
in contempt petition were discharged,
however, liberty was given to the petitioner
to agitate the issue of the reliefs which the
petitioner felt entitled in terms of the
judgment and order dated 18.12.2017
passed by this Court in his case.

16. Sri Tewari has submitted that the
petitioner and one Sri Vijay Singh Yadav
were regularized vide the same order and
Sri Yadav retired from service from the
post of Junior Engineer on 30.9.2018 and
his
last
salary
drawn
amounted
to
Rs.1,00,576/- whereas the last drawn salary
of the petitioner was treated as Rs.13,730/-.

17. Sri Apoorva Tewari has submitted
that in compliance of the judgment and
order dated 18.12.2017, the petitioner
should have been paid all consequential
service benefits ignoring the impugned
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punishment order dated 4.2.2009 as if such
order was not passed against the petitioner
and the petitioner remained in service till
his age of superannuation. However,
pursuant to the judgment and order dated
18.12.2017, the petitioner was only entitled
for 50% salary from the date of his
dismissal of service to the date of his
retirement but for other consequential
benefits including pensionery benefits, he
was entitled for all benefits, which have
been paid to the identically placed
employees. Since the judgment and order
dated 18.12.2017 has not been assailed by
the Federation before the superior court,
rather accepted such judgment, therefore,
the concerning authority might have not
legally deviated from such directions of
this Court.

18. Sri Tewari has placed reliance
upon para-24 of the dictum of the Apex
Court in re; Union of India and Others v.
Colonel Ran Singh Rudee, (2018) 8 SCC
53, which reads as under:-

"24. The first question that arises
is regarding the significance of the
expression "consequential benefits" as used
in the Order dated 20-11-2013. The matter
which was directly in issue and under
consideration was the correctness and
validity
of
General
Court
Martial
proceedings. While annulling the findings
and effect of such General Court Martial
proceedings, the idea was to confer those
benefits which the officer stood denied
directly as a result of pendency of such
proceedings. Such benefits would therefore
be those which are easily quantifiable,
namely, those in the nature of loss of
salary, emoluments and other benefits. But
the expression cannot be construed to mean
that even promotions which are strictly on
the basis of comparative merit and
selection must also stand conferred upon
the officer. It is true that as a result of
pendency of the General Court Martial
proceedings the respondent was kept out of
service for nearly nine years and as such
his profile would show inadequacy to a
certain extent. On the other hand, the
Department was also denied of proper
assessment of the profile of the respondent
for those years. The correct approach in
the matter is the one which was considered
by this Court in K.D. Gupta v. Union of
India [K.D. Gupta v. Union of India, 1989
Supp (1) SCC 416 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 448]
as under : (SCC pp. 420-21, para 8)

"8.
The
respondents
have
maintained that the petitioner has not
served in the appropriate grades for the
requisite period and has not possessed the
necessary experience and training and
consequential assessment of ability which
are a precondition for promotion. The
defence
services
have
their
own
peculiarities and special requirements. The
considerations
which
apply
to other
government servants in the matter of
promotion cannot as a matter of course be
applied to defence personnel of the
petitioner's category and rank. Requisite
experience,
consequent
exposure
and
appropriate review are indispensable for
according promotion and the petitioner,
therefore, cannot be given promotions as
claimed by him on the basis that his
batchmates have earned such promotions.
Individual capacity and special qualities on
the basis of assessment have to be found
but in the case of the petitioner these are
not available. We find force in the stand of
the respondents and do not accept the
petitioner's contention that he can be
granted promotion to the higher ranks as
claimed by him by adopting the promotions
obtained
by
his
batchmates
as
the
measure."
10 All. Abdul Rauf Vs. U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors.
181

19. Sri Tewari has submitted that the
Apex Court in re; Colonel Ran Singh
Rudee
(supra)
has
interpreted
the
expression 'consequential benefits'. As per
the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the
'consequential benefits' would be those,
which are easily quantifiable, namely, those
in the nature of loss of salary, emoluments
and other benefits. But the expression
cannot be construed to mean that even
promotions which are strictly on the basis
of comparative merit and selection must
also stand conferred upon the officer.

20. Therefore, Sri Tewari has
submitted that the petitioner is not claiming
promotion or selection since he is a retired
employee but the term 'consequential
benefits' includes the loss of salary,
emoluments and other benefits, therefore,
the benefits claimed by the petitioner are
fully covered with the term 'emoluments
and other benefits'. Sri Tewari has drawn
attention of this Court towards paragraphs
24 and 25 of the writ petition, wherein he
has
categorically
indicated
that
the
petitioner and one Sri Vijay Singh Yadav
were regularized by the same order and
both were retired from the post of Junior
Engineer. Sri Yadav retired on 30.9.2018
whereas the petitioner reached the age of
superannuation on 31.7.2017. The basic
pay of Sri Yadav was Rs.30,370/- and his
last
salary
drawn
was
Rs.1,00,576/-
whereas basic pay of the petitioner was
treated as Rs.5,875/- as was being drawn by
the petitioner on 1.2.1999 and his last pay
drawn was treated as Rs.13,730/-, without
assigning any cogent reasons to that effect
vide impugned orders dated 6.7.2018 and
21.7.2018 (Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ
petition). No specific denial has been given
in paras 31 & 32 of the counter affidavit,
only this much has been indicated that the
petitioner has been paid strictly in terms of
judgment and order dated 18.12.2017.

21. Sri Tewari has referred the dictum
of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v.
Church of South India Trust Association
CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3
SCC 1, submitting that the Apex Court has
held that quashing of any order results in
the restoration of the position as it stood on
the date of passing of the order which has
been
quashed.
Therefore,
when
the
impugned punishment order has been
quashed, the petitioner shall be restored
back in a position which stood on the date
of passing such order which has been
quashed and in that case, the petitioner
shall be entitled for all consequential
benefits as prayed in the writ petition.

22. Per contra, Sri Shireesh Kumar,
learned counsel for the opposite parties has
submitted that the present writ petition is
not maintainable as it has been filed
seeking those reliefs to which the petitioner
is not entitled. Further, the petitioner
throughout in the writ petition has not made
any averment to establish his entitlement to
the reliefs claimed by him in the present
writ petition and the petitioner has not
averred his entitlement to revision of
gratuity, provident fund, salary and gratuity
on the basis of revised gratuity.

23. Sri Shireesh Kumar has further
contended that the present writ petition is
barred by the principles of constructive
resjudicata and the provisions of Order 2
Rule 2 C.P.C. inasmuch as the present writ
petition has been instituted seeking those
reliefs which had willingly not being
claimed by the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.2954 (S/S) of 2009 and once the
petitioner did not choose to claim those
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
benefits in earlier writ petition, then the
present writ petition is not maintainable.

24. Sri Shireesh Kumar has further
submitted that the present writ petition has
been filed for the enforcement of judgment
and order dated 18.12.2017 claiming those
benefits, which were neither claimed by the
petitioner nor allowed to him by this Court
through the judgment and order dated
18.12.2017.

25. Sri Shireesh Kumar has also placed
reliance upon the dictum of the Apex Court
in re; Colonel Ran Singh Rudee (supra)
referring paras 23 to 27 and 30 & 31 by
submitting that the Apex Court has observed
in that case that though prejudice was caused
to the respondent by wrongly proceeding
against him in General Court Martial (GCM)
consequent to which he (petitioner of that
writ petition) lost 9 years of serve is apparent
but sympathy cannot outweigh considerations
on merit since the respondent was found unfit
for selection as "Colonel" by Selection Board
though he was granted time-scale promotion
to the rank of Colonel after putting in
required service. Therefore, Sri Shireesh
Kumar has submitted that the consequential
benefits so prayed by the petitioner are
similar to the selection, which is granted after
evaluating the work and performance of the
employee
and
since
the
work
and
performance of the present petitioner was not
upto the mark, therefore, he could have not
been paid his first promotional pay scale and
benefit of Sixth Pay Commission on the basis
of revised salary.

26. So as to strengthen his aforesaid
submission, he has cited the judgment of
the Apex Court in re; Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta
v. Union of India and Others, 1989 Supp
(1) SCC 416.

27. Sri Shireesh Kumar while
referring the dictum of the Apex Court in
re; Union of India and Others v. Lt. Gen.
Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Another,
(2000) 6 SCC 698, has submitted that the
petitioner is not fit and legally eligible for
promotional scale and other reliefs as those
benefits could have been provided after the
assessment
of
performance
by
the
Committee, therefore, those benefits may
not be treated as consequential benefits.

28. While referring the dictum of the
Apex
Court
in
re;
Chief
Regional
Manager,
United
India
Insurance
Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan,
(2019) 7 SCC 564, Sri Shireesh Kumar has
submitted that grant of the reliefs in the
present writ petition is not automatic on
quashing of the punishment order but
specific
pleadings
for
suitability,
entitlement and eligibility are missing, as
such the present writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.

29. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that after quashing the punishment
order dated 4.2.2009 by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 in
Service Single No.2954 of 2009 would
result in restoration of the position as it
stood on the date of passing of the order. In
other words, it shall be treated as if the
punishment order dated 4.2.2009 was not in
existence and in that case, the petitioner
would be entitled for all service benefits,
which have been prayed by him ignoring
the punishment order dated 4.2.2009.
Furthermore, the judgment and order dated
18.12.2017 has not been assailed by the
Federation before the superior court by
filing Special Appeal before the High Court
or Special Leave Petition before the Apex
10 All. Abdul Rauf Vs. U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors.
183
Court, therefore, that order has attained
finality.

30. To me, while passing judgment
and order dated 18.12.2017, this Court has
clearly held that (i) the punishment order
dated
4.2.2009
is
quashed
with
all
consequences; (ii) the petitioner would be
entitled to 50% salary from the date of
dismissal from service up to the date of
retirement; (iii) the pensionery benefits
admissible to the petitioner shall remain
unaffected; (iv) the petitioner shall be
treated as if he was in service up to the date
of attaining the age of superannuation.

31. Admittedly, salary of the
petitioner
has
not
been
revised
by
providing him annual increment w.e.f.
1.2.1999 till 31.7.2017, the date of
superannuation. He has not been granted
the first promotional pay scale w.e.f. the
year 2004 and has not been given the
benefit of Sixth Pay Commission on the
basis of revised pay scale thereby he has
not been paid his post retiral dues after
making the aforesaid exercise.

32. The main contention of Sri
Shireesh Kumar is that the aforesaid
benefits would not come within the
purview of 'consequential benefits' as such,
'consequential benefits' are dependent upon
the assessment by a Selection Committee
which had no occasion to assess the
performance of the petitioner as he was out
of employment since 4.2.2009 till he
reached at the age of superannuation. Sri
Shireesh Kumar has also submitted that in
earlier writ petition, the petitioner has not
prayed any relief, which has been prayed in
this writ petition, however, such relief
could have been prayed by him at that point
of time, therefore, the present writ petition
is barred by the constructive resjudicata.

. I am afraid as to how an employee,
who was very much in service prior to
passing the order of dismissal dated
4.2.2009 and at the time of filing of writ
petition in the year 2009, could have
prayed those reliefs, which have been
prayed by him in the present writ petition
after he reached the age of superannuation.

34. The case laws so cited by Sri
Shireesh Kumar are mainly relating to the
serving Officers of the Army wherein there
is a clear cut mechanism providing
promotion up to the rank of Lt. Colonel and
from the post of Colonel onwards.
Therefore,
unless
the
Selection
Board/Committee assesses the merit of the
Lt. Colonel, he could have not been given
actual promotion on the post of Colonel
and onwards but no similar mechanism is
provided in the present case. The Apex
Court in re; Colonel Ran Singh Rudee
(supra) has clearly observed that the
consequential benefits are such benefits
which are easily quantifiable, namely, those
in the nature of loss of salary, emoluments
and other benefits. Therefore, the reliefs
prayed in the present writ petition in
respect of revision of pay scale by
providing the annual increments to the
petitioner w.e.f. 1.2.1999 till 31.7.2017,
grant of first promotional pay scale w.e.f.
the year 2004 and the benefit of Sixth Pay
Commission on the basis of revised pay
scale
come
within
the
purview
of
'emoluments and other benefits'. I could not
find any cogent reason in the impugned
orders dated 6.7.2018 and 21.7.2018
(Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition)
providing the pay scale of Rs.5,875/- to the
petitioner which was being paid to him
w.e.f. 1.2.1999 as the logic to this effect is
absolutely missing in both the orders. The
petitioner has indicated such fact in para-21
(a) of the writ petition but proper reply
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereof has not been given vide para-22 of
the counter affidavit.

35. Besides, the factum of hostile
discrimination with identically placed
person, namely, Sri Vijay Singh Yadav
has not been explained by the opposite
parties properly and the law is trite to the
effect that if the hostile discrimination of
a person is not explained by the authority,
who has done such discrimination, then
the said action would be treated as
violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the
Constitution of India.

36. In view of what has been
considered above and also in view of the
dictums of the Apex Court so cited by the
learned counsel for the parties, I hereby
allow the present writ petition.

37. A writ of certiorari is issued
quashing the orders dated 6.7.2018 and
21.7.2018,
which
are
contained
as
Annexure Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition.

38. A writ of mandamus is issued
commanding the opposite parties to
revise the salary of the petitioner by
providing the annual increments to the
petitioner
from
01.02.1999
till
31.07.2017
and
to
grant
the
first
promotional pay scale to the petitioner
w.e.f. the year 2004 and further grant the
benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission on
the basis of the revised salary.

39. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to revise the retiral
benefits on the basis of last pay drawn
calculating the same in terms of judgment
of this Court thereby making payment of
arrears of salary and arrears of retiral
dues.

40. This order shall be complied with
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
eight weeks, failing which the petitioner
shall be entitled for interest on aforesaid
dues at the current market rate.

41. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)10ILR A184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J

Service Single No. 12020 of 2020
alongwith
Service Single No. 12834 of 2020
alongwith
Service Single No. 17765 of 2020

Rajesh Kumar Tandon & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Shailendra Kumar
Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Alok Saxena, Dilip Mani, Girdhari Lal
Shukla, Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Vijay Dixit

A.
Service
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 - Rules
8(1) & 8(2) - Seniority - Post of Assistant
Commissioner - Promotion and direct
appointment made in the same year -
Inter se Seniority amongst direct recruits
and promotees - Determination - Rules
8(1) or Rule 8(3) - Applicability - Held, if
the appointment to the post of Assistant
Commissioner Commercial Tax is made
through direct recruitment and promotion
in the same year of recruitment, their
seniority must be determined applying the
provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Rules, 1991
-
Rule
8(1)
cannot
be
applied
for