# Arvind Kumar Singh v. Lok Ayukta, U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 882
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 39442 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-kumar-singh-v-lok-ayukta-u-p-ors-54570
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Appointment
-
Jurisdiction - The appointment of public
servant or any dispute in respect of
service conditions since are regulated by
the statutory scheme they are supposedly
kept out of the provisions of the Act of

## Text

882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. In this wake it cannot be
contended that the records of the service of
petitioner's
father
was
less
than
satisfactory.

4. As per the impugned order the
petitioner's claim for appointment on
compassionate
ground
have
been
invalidated on the footing of the following
provisions of the Scheme of appointment
on compassionate ground:

 "1. A Note No. HR MPRD
119:2017
dated
01/03/2017
for
consideration of disciplinary action cases in
the
Scheme
of
Appointment
on
Compassionate Grounds is deliberated in
the HR Sub-Committee of the Board of
Directors today i.e. on 21.03.2017.

 2.
The
Committee,
while
concurring with the modifications, made
the following observations:

 A) Committee for Compassionate
Appointment will be authorised to decline
all
requests
for
compassionate
appointment/ex-gratia payment in cases
where major penalty was imposed on the
ex-employee while in service, and/or where
disciplinary action which was pending at
the time of death of the ex-employee would
have resulted in imposition of major
penalty;"

5. The aforesaid disqualification
will attach to an employee against whom
major penalty was imposed and the remains
in the record at the time of his death.

6. In the instant case as seen above
the major penalty stood effaced two years
after its imposition, and its adverse impact
did not continue subsequent to the
promotion of the petitioner's father. The
said penalty imposed upon the petitioner's
father cannot be invoked to decline his
application
for
the
appointment
on
compassionate grounds.

7. In the wake preceding discussion
the impugned order dated 03.03.2021
passed by respondent no. 3 is liable to be
set aside and is set aside.

8.
The
application
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment
on
compassionate
ground
shall
be
considered afresh as per law within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 882
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ C No. 39442 of 2024

Arvind Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Lok Ayukta, U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Namit Srivastava, Ms. Parul Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manas Bhargava

A.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Jurisdiction - The appointment of public
servant or any dispute in respect of
service conditions since are regulated by
the statutory scheme they are supposedly
kept out of the provisions of the Act of
1975.
3 All. Arvind Kumar Singh Vs. Lok Ayukta, U.P. & Ors.
883
The allegation that an appointment of a public
servant has been made illegally or contrary to
law would not fall within the realm of
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta or Up Lokayukta.
This is particularly so as Section 8(1)(b)
excludes
matters
from
the
purview
of
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta.
Clause (d) of the Third Schedule clearly
postulates that action taken in respect of
appointments, removals, pay, discipline, etc.,
would be excluded from the scope of inquiry by
the Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta, except matters
relating
to
claims,
for
pension,
gratuity,
provident fund, etc., which arise on retirement,
removal or termination of service. (Para 11)

Therefore, the complaint made by the petitioner
questioning
the
appointment
of
private
respondent before the Up Lokayukta itself is not
maintainable. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Manas Bhargava, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 1 and
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus
commanding the first respondent to decide
petitioner's complaint dated 29.5.2023, by
passing a reasoned speaking order. The first
respondent in this case is the Lokayukta,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The complaint
dated
29.5.2023,
is
in
respect
of
appointment
offered
to
the
private
respondent as Senior Assistant in the office
of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bareillly.
According to petitioner the appointment
has been obtained illegally.

3. While entertaining the writ
petition doubts were expressed with regard
to entertainability of a claim of this kind
before the Up Lokayukta and to conduct
investigation in this regard. Following
orders were passed in the matter on
27.2.2025:-

"Heard
Sri
Namit
Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
Sri
Manas
Bhargava, learned counsel for
respondent no.1.
We adjourn the matter for
the day in order to enable learned
counsel for the petitioner to apprise
the Court on the aspect relating
jurisdiction of Up-Lok Ayukta to
conduct investigation in a case
where
the
appointment
of
a
government servant is challenged.
Repeat as fresh on its turn."

4. Instructions have been obtained
by Sri Manas Bhargava, who has placed
statutory scheme, according to which, the
complaint of the present kind wherein the
appointment of a government servant is
challenged would not be maintainable
before the Up Lokayukta.

5. In order to appreciate the
controversy, it would be worth noticing that
Uttar
Pradesh
Lokayukta
and
Up
Lokayukta Act, 1975, has been enacted by
the State to make provision for the
appointment and functions of certain
authorities
for
the
investigation
of
grievances
and
allegations
against
ministers, legislators and other public
servants in certain cases and for matters
connected therewith. Section 2 of the Act
of 1975 contains the definition clause. Subsection (b) of Section 2 as well as subsection (d) of Section 2 defines 'allegations'
and 'grievances', which are reproduced
hereinafter:-
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"(b) "allegation", in relation
to a public servant, mean- any
affirmation
that
such
public
servant? has abused his position as
such to obtain any gain or favour to
himself or to any other person or to
cause undue harm or hardship to
any other person, was actuated in
the discharge of his functions as
such public servant by personal
interest or improper or corrupt
motive, or is guilty of corruption,
or lack of integrity in his capacity
as such public servant;
(d) "grievance" means a
claim by a person that he sustained
injustice or undue hardship in
consequence
of
maladministration;"

6. Section 8 provides for matters,
which are not subject to investigation by
the Lokayukta or Up Lokayukta. Our
attention has been invited under Section
8(1)(b)(i), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"8(1)(b) in the case of a
complaint involving a grievance in
respect of any action,--
(i) if such action relates to
any- matter specified in the Third
Schedule; or
(ii) if the complainant has
or had any remedy by way of
proceeding before any Tribunal or
Court of law:
Provided that nothing in
sub-clause (ii) shall prevent the
Lokayukta or an Up- Lokayukta
from conducting an investigation if
he is satisfied that such person
could not or cannot, for sufficient
cause, have recourse to a remedy
referred to in that sub-clause."

7. Pursuant to above provision,
Third Schedule has been framed, in which
Clause (d) relates to the appointment and is
reproduced hereinafter:-

"(d) Action taken in respect
of appointments, removals, pay,
discipline, superannuation or other
matters relating to conditions of
service of public servants but not
including action relating to claims,
for pension, gratuity, provident
fund or to any claims which arise
on
retirement,
removal
or
termination of service."

8. From the statutory scheme
contained in U.P. Act No. 42 of 1975, the
object is abundantly clear which is to make
provision for appointment and function of
authorities
which
may
investigate
grievances
and
allegations
againstministers, legislators and other
public servants.

9.

The
primary
object
of
appointing
the
Lokayukta
and
Up
Lokayukta is to investigate allegations
against the ministers, legislators and other
public servants primarily in discharge of
their official functions. This scheme is
apparent, inasmuch as, the legislature while
defining allegation has clearly included
allegation in respect to a public servant
where such allegation is with regard to
abuse of his position, as such to obtain any
gain or favour to himself or to any other
person or to cause undue harm or hardship
to any other person; allegation that the
discharge of function by the public servant
was actuated by personal interest or
improper or corrupt motive, or is guilty of
corruption, or lack of integrity in his
capacity as such public servant.
3 All. R.K. Prasad & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
885
10. The grievance which can be
entertained by the Lokayukta has also been
specified in Section 2(d), which is to
include a claim by a person that he
sustained injustice or undue hardship as a
consequence of maladministration; or a
complaint to the effect that an authority
empowered to make appointments to a
public service or post in connection with
the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh has
after the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas
(Amendment)
Act,
1989
made
any
appointment in breach of the quota of
reservation for members of Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes laid down by
the State Government.

11. The
allegation
that
an
appointment of a public servant has been
made illegally or contrary to law would
apparently not fall within the realm of
jurisdiction of the Lokayukta or Up
Lokayukta. This is particularly so as
Section 8(1)(b) excludes matters from the
purview
of
jurisdiction
of
the
Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta. Clause (d) of the
Third Schedule clearly postulates that
action taken in respect of appointments,
removals, pay, discipline, etc., would be
excluded from the scope of inquiry by the
Lokayukta/Up Lokayukta, except matters
relating to claims, for pension, gratuity,
provident fund, etc., which arise on
retirement, removal or termination of
service.

12. The appointment of public
servant or any dispute in respect of service
conditions since are otherwise regulated by
the statutory scheme they are supposedly
kept out of the provisions of the Act of
1975. Once that be so, we find that the
complaint
made
by
the
petitioner
questioning the appointment of private
respondent before the Up Lokayukta itself
is not maintainable. If that be so, no
direction
can
be
issued
to
decide
petitioner's complaint.

13. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 885
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 13305 of 2024

R.K. Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Central Government
Counsel

A. Service Law - Determination of basic
pay - Grant of notional increment -
Pension - The annual increment earned by
a
government
employee
during
the
previous year could not be denied to him
for
the
purpose
of
determining
his
pensionary benefits, merely because he
was not in service on the day the
increment actually fell due, that is, if he
had retired a day before it fell due, though
completing one full year of service,
otherwise entitling him to increment. The
increment had to be notionally granted and its
benefit extended for the purpose of determining
the employee's post-retiral benefits. (Para 7, 8)

B. Pendency of the application does not
entitle the respondents, including an
officer of the said respondents, to say that
they are not in a position to carry out the