# Babu Ram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 426
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-05
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 47 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babu-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49645
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection grade salary -
Similarly situated employees were granted
selection grade - Benefit of GO dated
17.10.1985 claimed - There was delay of
32 years in approaching the authority -
Effect - Held, in case the respondents did
not pay any heed to the claim of the
petitioners, then, they should have agitate
the
issue
forthwith
by
preferring
appropriate application/representation or
to
approach
a
Court
of
law
but
approaching the authority concerned after
a period of almost 32 years seeking
selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to them,
cannot stand judicial scrutiny. (Para 13)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the respondent shall not interfere in the
working of the petitioner as President of
Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar
except in accordance with law.

17. The writ petition stands allowed
to the extent indicated above.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 426
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 47 of 2023

Babu Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shiv Nath Goswami, Sri Santosh Kumar
Ramakant Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shikhar Anand

A. Service Law - Selection grade salary -
Similarly situated employees were granted
selection grade - Benefit of GO dated
17.10.1985 claimed - There was delay of
32 years in approaching the authority -
Effect - Held, in case the respondents did
not pay any heed to the claim of the
petitioners, then, they should have agitate
the
issue
forthwith
by
preferring
appropriate application/representation or
to
approach
a
Court
of
law
but
approaching the authority concerned after
a period of almost 32 years seeking
selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to them,
cannot stand judicial scrutiny. (Para 13)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. C. Jacob Vs Director of Geology and Mining &
anr.; (2008) 10 SCC 115

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners, Babu Ram,
Atar Singh, Juglal, Sadhu Ram, Ram
Singh,
Ravidutt
and
Phool
Singh,
challenging the judgment and order dated
25.01.2021 passed by the State Public
Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 24
of 2019 : Babu Ram and 13 others Vs.
State of U.P. and others as well as
judgment and order dated 28.09.2022
passed in Review Petition No. 15 of 2021
by the State Public Services Tribunal,
whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition as well as review petition.

2. Shri Shiv Nath Goswami, learned
Counsel for the petitioner has sent an
illness slip. It appears that along with Shri
Shiv Nath Goswami, Advocate, the name
of Shri Santosh Kumar and Ramakant
Upadhyay has also been shown in the cause
list as Counsel for the petitioner but neither
they are present nor there is any request to
pass over or adjournment of the case. In
these backdrops, we proceeds to hear the
matter with the assistance of learned
Standing Counsel.

3. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Bisen, learned Standing Counsel for the
State/respondents no. 1 to 4 and perused
the impugned judgments as well as material
brought on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioners were appointed on the post of
Vaccinator in the Health Department on
18.09.2067,
09.06.1973,
25.07.1962,
28.09.1971,
22.09.1978,
29.03.1971,
1 All. Babu Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
18.06.1971, respectively. Petitioners no. 1,
2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were retired from the post
of
Health
Inspector
on
30.09.2004,
31.07.2010, 31.01.1996, 30.09.2011 and
31.07.2012,
respectively,
whereas
petitioner no.5-Ram Singh appears to be
still in service.

5. According to the petitioners, the
Government
of
U.P.
had
issued
a
Government Order dated 04.02.1983 in
regard to granting the selection grade to
those employees who have completed his
10 years satisfactory services but the
petitioners, even after completion of 10
years
satisfactory
services,
were
not
granted the selection grade because they
were already drawn higher pay scale.
Subsequently, Government of U.P. had
issued another Government Order dated
17.10.1985, by which the benefit of
selection grade has been granted to those
employees, who have been given the higher
pay-scale
before
01.07.1982
but
the
petitioners were not given the benefit of the
aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
17.10.1985 also.

6. It has been stated in the writ
petition that several similarly situated
persons have filed the claim petition before
the Tribunal, claiming selection grade
w.e.f. 01.07.1982, which was allowed and
they have been granted selection grade
w.e.f. 01.07.1982 in compliance of the
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal,
but the petitioners were not granted the
selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 and as
such, they preferred a joint representations
dated
03.04.2017
to
the
authority
concerned but as no heed was paid, the
petitioners had preferred claim petition,
bearing No. 1613 of 2018, before the
Tribunal, which was disposed of vide
judgment and order dated 11.09.2018,
directing
to
decide
the
petitioners'
representation dated 03.04.2017 within
three months.

7. In compliance of the aforesaid
order dated 11.09.2018, the petitioners'
representation
dated
03.04.2017
was
considered by the authority concerned and
the same was rejected vide order dated
18.12.2018, which was challenged by the
petitioners before the Tribunal in Claim
Petition No. 24 of 2019. The Tribunal, after
hearing the parties and going through the
record, opined that the petitioners have
filed the representation claiming selection
grade after 32 years and further claim
petition raising the issue of grant of
selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 is also
barred by limitation and the same is not
maintainable, dismissed the claim petition
vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2021.
Not satisfied with the judgment and order
dated 25.01.2021, the petitioners have
preferred Review Petition No. 15 of 2021
before the Tribunal, which was also
dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment
and order dated 28.09.2022.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
orders dated 25.01.2021 and 28.09.2022
passed by the Tribunal, the instant writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners.

9. Learned Standing Counsel, on
placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in C. Jacob Vs. Director of
Geology and Mining and Anr. : (2008) 10
SCC 115, contended that the repeated
approach
by
the
petitioners
to
the
respondents for the redressal of their
grievances cannot explain the laches
inasmuch as any such order which was
sought to be challenged by the petitioners
should have been challenged within a
reasonable time. He also contended that in
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C. Jacob (supra), the Apex Court, after
considering the modus of representation as
submitted by the employees, has held that
repeated representations would not revive a
stale claim. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly
dismissed the claim petition as well as
review petition preferred by the petitioners
by means of the impugned orders.

10. We have examined the submission
advanced by the learned Standing Counsel
and perused the impugned judgments as
well as the material brought on record.

11. The ground in the petition is that
similarly situated persons were granted the
selection grade in compliance of the order
of the Tribunal passed in a claim petition
but the petitioners? claim was rejected by
the authority concerned vide order dated
18.12.2018, which was challenged before
the Tribunal by filing claim petition No. 24
of 2019 but the Tribunal, without going
into the merits of the case, has erred in
rejecting the claim of the petitioners by
means of the impugned orders on the
grounds that the petitioners have moved the
representation for grant to selection grade
after 32 years.

12. It transpires from the impugned
judgment passed by the Tribunal that the
Tribunal, after hearing the parties and
going through the record, has recorded
specific finding of facts that when the
Government Order dated 17.10.1985 was
issued by the State Government, granting
selection grade to those employees who
have drawn higher pay scale, the petitioners
did not submit any representation for
granting the benefit of the aforesaid order
dated 17.10.1985 and kept mum. After 32
years, the petitioners woke up in a deep
slumber and preferred a representation on
03.04.2017,
claiming
to
grant
them
selection grade in the light of the
Government Order dated 17.10.1985. The
said representation was rejected by the
authority concerned on 18.12.2018 by
observing that the petitioners are not
entitled to get selection grade. Accordingly,
the claim petition as well as review petition
was dismissed by the Tribunal by means of
the impugned orders.

13. On due consideration, we are of
the view that in case the respondents did
not pay any heed to the claim of the
petitioners, then, they should have agitate
the
issue
forthwith
by
preferring
appropriate application/ representation or to
approach a Court of law but approaching
the authority concerned after a period of
almost 32 years seeking selection grade
w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to them, cannot stand
judicial scrutiny. The Tribunal has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in C. Jacob (supra). For the sake of
convenience, the relevant observations of
the Apex Court in C. Jacob (supra) are

"8. Let us take the hypothetical
case of an employee who is terminated
from service in 1980. He does not
challenge the termination. But nearly two
decades later, say in the year 2000, he
decides to challenge the termination. He is
aware that any such challenge would be
rejected at the threshold on the ground of
delay (if the application is made before
Tribunal) or on the ground of delay and
laches (if a writ petition is filed before a
High
Court).
Therefore,
instead
of
challenging the termination, he gives a
representation requesting that he may be
taken back to service. Normally, there will
be considerable delay in replying such
representations relating to old matters.
Taking advantage of this position, the exemployee files an application/writ petition
1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Bhatt & Ors.
429
before the Tribunal/High Court seeking a
direction to the employer to consider and
dispose
of
his
representation.
The
Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or
dispose
of
such
applications/petitions
(many a time even without notice to the
other side), without examining the matter
on merits, with a direction to consider and
dispose of the representation.

9. The courts/tribunals proceed
on the assumption, that every citizen
deserves a reply to his representation.
Secondly they assume that a mere direction
to
consider
and
dispose
of
the
representation
does
not
involve
any
`decision' on rights and obligations of
parties.
Little
do
they
realize
the
consequences of such a direction to
'consider'.
If
the
representation
is
considered and accepted, the ex-employee
gets a relief, which he would not have got
on account of the long delay, all by reason
of the direction to `consider'. If the
representation is considered and rejected,
the ex-employee files an application/writ
petition, not with reference to the original
cause of action of 1982, but by treating the
rejection of the representation given in
2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is
made for quashing the rejection of
representation and for grant of the relief
claimed
in
the
representation.
The
Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain
such applications/petitions ignoring the
huge delay preceding the representation,
and proceed to examine the claim on merits
and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of
limitation or the laches gets obliterated or
ignored.

10. Every representation to the
government for relief, may not be replied
on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or barred
by limitation, can be rejected on that
ground alone, without examining the merits
of the claim. In regard to representations
unrelated to the department, the reply may
be only to inform that the matter did not
concern the department or to inform the
appropriate department. Representations
with incomplete particulars may be replied
by seeking relevant particulars. The replies
to such representations, cannot furnish a
fresh cause of action or revive a stale or
dead claim.?

14. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned judgments passed by the
Tribunal.

15. The instant writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 429
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C. J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 253 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rohit Bhatt & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli, S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Tiwari

A. Service Law - Primary Teacher -
Selection - Recruitment Examination -
Possession of minimum qualification -
Respondent-candidate duly passed the