# Dr. (Smt.) Premlata Pandey v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 12
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-smt-premlata-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39766
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
permissible.
Expression
"so
far
as
possible" in Rule 8 (2) of Act, has been
interpreted by this Court in the case of
1980 AWC 186 (Para 9 and 10), Mohd.
Naseem Versus A.R.O/R.C. and E.O
Agra and others and held that the
statutory requirement is essential and
must unless for reasons to be recorded, it
is not possible to act or comply with the
same.

12.

When
a
court
grants
adjournment, it is expected that it shall
record reasons, in brief, to indicate that
adjournment
was imminent and not
avoidable.

13. By allowing adjournments
lightly,
unscrupulous
litigant
is
encouraged while court fails in its duty to
protect the other side from exploitation,
avoidable harassment and frustration.

14. In view of the above, it is
desired that all the subordinate courts,
dealing with Rent Control matters, be
required to bear in mind the aforesaid
observations.

15. This Court is not inclined to
issue a Writ of mandamus to command
court below to decide a case within a
specified period inasmuch as court below
dealing with the cases of Landlord and
Tenant is the best judge of its diary and
conscious of other circumstances/situation
under which it has to deal with its docket
but, while granting adjournment it must
justify its order.

16. Courts must not succumb to
delaying tactics by granting adjournments
in lighter vein. By asking for adjournment
for the sake of adjournment and the judge
granting them very lightly, both became
part of very vicious circle. The Bar has to
contribute its might. Adjournment, where
it becomes unavoidable may be sought,
but not for the sake of it not at the drop of
hat. Look at the plight of the poor litigant.
What happens to him. Who pays for loss
of time so far as he concerned? We must
avoid all unnecessary adjournments.

17.

One
way
to
check
frivolous/manipulated adjournment is to
impose real and adequate costs; so that
concerned party should take up the case
with all seriousness at its command give
priority to such cases.

18. Writ petition dismissed in limine
subject to the observations made above.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

'U 6PW 3UHPODWD 3DQGH\ «3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $PEULVK .XPDU 6KDUPD
6KUL $. *DXU
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQW
6UL 9LQ\D 0DOYL\D
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ± $UWLFOH DQG
GHQLDO
RI
WKH
EHQHILW
RI
SHUVRQDO
SURPRWLRQ WR WKH SRVW RI 5HDGHU DQG LWV
SD\VFDOH WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU RQ WKH JURXQG
2All] Dr. (Smt.) Premlata Pandey V. State of U.P. and another

RI ZLWKGUDZDO RI WKH 6FKHPH LV ZKROO\
DUELWUDU\
DQG
YLRODWLYH
RI
WKH
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
JXDUDQWHH
RI
HTXDO
WUHDWPHQW HQYLVDJHG LQ $UWLFOHV DQG
 RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD LQ DV
PXFK
DV
VHYHUDO
RWKHU
LQFXPEHQWV
VLPLODUO\ VLWXDWHG DV WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV
JUDQWHG
WKH
EHQHILW
RI
SHUVRQDO
SURPRWLRQ WR WKH SRVW DQG SD\VFDOH RI
5HDGHU DQG WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV VLQJXODUO\
OHIW
RXW
±
LW
ZLOO
VXUHO\
UHVXOW
LQ
SHUSHWXDWLRQ
RI
WKH
YLFH
RI
GLVFULPLQDWLRQ IRUELGGHQ E\ $UWLFOH
DQG RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD +HOG
LQ SDUD
'HQLDO
RI
WKH
EHQHILW
RI
SHUVRQDO
SURPRWLRQ WR WKH SRVW RI 5HDGHU DQG LWV
SD\VFDOH WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU RQ WKH JURXQG
RI ZLWKGUDZDO RI WKH 6FKHPH LV ZKROO\
DUELWUDU\
DQG
YLRODWLYH
RI
WKH
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
JXDUDQWHH
RI
HTXDO
WUHDWPHQW HQYLVDJHG LQ $UWLFOH DQG
RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD LQ DV PXFK DV
WKH SHWLWLRQHU KDG DOUHDG\ PDWXUHG KHU
ULJKW WR WKH JUDQW RI SHUVRQDO SURPRWLRQ
WR WKH SRVW RI 5HDGHU DQG WR WKH SD\
VFDOH RI WKH SRVW RI 5HDGHU DQG KDG DOVR
GHPDQGHG
IURP
WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV
IRU
HQIRUFHPHQW
RI
WKH
VDLG
ULJKW
PXFK
EHIRUH WKH LVVXDQFH RI WKH *RYHUQPHQW
2UGHU
GDWHG
WK
6HSWHPEHU

ZLWKGUDZLQJ
WKH
VFKHPH
RI
SHUVRQDO
SURPRWLRQ WR WKH SRVW RI 5HDGHU DQG WR
WKH
SD\VFDOH
DWWDFKHG
WKHUHWR
0RUHRYHU WKH *RYHUQPHQW RUGHU GDWHG
WK 6HSWHPEHU FDQ QRW EH E\ DQ\
VWUHFK RI LPDJLQDWLRQ KHOG WR RSHUDWH
UHWURVSHFWLYHO\ GHSULYLQJ WKH SHWLWLRQHU
RI WKH ULJKW DOUHDG\ DFFXUHG WR KHU

By the Court

1. Heard Sir A.K. Gaur, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Sri Vinay Malviya, the learned Standing
Counsel of the State of U.P., representing
the respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner urges this Court to
issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent to grant to her personal
promotion to the post of Reader and its
scale of pay.

3. Undisputed acts and events
constituting facts of the case, as they
emerge from the pleadings on record, are
these: The petitioner was appointed as a
Lecturer in Pharmacy at Motilal Nehru
Medical College, Allahabad, on ad-hoc
basis, in the year 1974, and was
regularised on 12th February, 1986.

4. In the year 1986, the State of
Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order
dated 24th June, 1986 envisaging grant of
personal
promotion
to
Lecturers
of
various Medical Colleges of the State on
fulfilment of conditions specified therein.
The principal condition for grant of the
promotion was completion of 13 years of
satisfactory
continuous
service.
The
Government Order dated 24th June, 1986
was followed by another Government
Order dated 28th October, 1986 whereby
the incumbents granted the personal
promotion of Reader were also granted
the designation of Reader.

5. The petitioner completed the
requisite
13
years
of
satisfactory
continuous service, a condition precedent
for grant of personal promotion to the
post and scale of Reader, on 25th
February, 1987. Despite the fact that the
petitioner had completed requisite 13
years of satisfactory continuous service
she was not granted the benefit of
personal promotion to the post of Reader
and the scale of the pay of the said post.
This led her to make a representation on
24th January, 1989, which was duly
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
recommended by the Principal of the
Medial College. The representation of the
petitioner went unheeded compelling her
to approach this Court through instant
writ petition.

6. On 10th August, 1990, on the
request of the learned Standing Counsel
representing them, the respondents were
granted a month's time for filing counteraffidavit but the respondents failed to
respond.

7. Thereafter, the matter came up
before the Court on 1st August, 1991. The
Court noticed the lapse on the part of the
respondents in not filing the counteraffidavit and admitted the writ petition.
The Court also passed an interim order
dated 1st August, 1991 directing the
Secretary,
Department
of
Medical,
Lucknow
and
Director,
Medical
Education & Training, U.P., Lucknow to
accord
to
the
petitioner
personal
promotion within a period of six weeks
from the date of service of a certified
copy of the order upon them or to show
cause by filing counter-affidavit within
that period.

8. There is no dispute that the
certified copy of the order dated 1st
August, 1991 was duly served on the
respondents concerned. It will be relevant
to notice here that despite service of the
interim order dated 1st August, 1991, the
respondents
neither
carried
out
the
direction of the Court for grant of
personal promotion to the petitioner nor
did they show cause within the period
stipulated in the interim order dated 1st
August, 1991.

9. However, the State of U.P. passed
an order dated 7th October, 1991, a
photocopy whereof is Annexure-C A-2 to
the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents on 27th November, 1998,
whereby the requisite personal promotion
to the post of Reader and scale of pay of
that post was granted to the petitioner.
But, the grant of personal promotion and
scale of pay was made subject to result of
this petition.

10. Obviously the order granting the
personal promotion and scale of pay to
the petitioner being conditional, the
controversy regarding the entitlement of
the petitioner for the grant of personal
promotion to the post of Reader and scale
of pay thereof survives calling upon the
Court to adjudicate upon the same.

11. The respondents seek to defend
the denial to the petitioner the grant of
personal promotion to the post of Reader
and pay-scale attached thereto on the
ground of withdrawal of scheme of grant
of personal promotion vide Government
Order dated 6th September, 1990, a
photocopy whereof is Annexure-CA-1 to
the counter-affidavit of Sri Amarjeet
Mishra.

12. Neither in their pleadings
contained in the counter-affidavit and
supplementary
counter-affidavit
nor
during the course of hearing it has been
disputed that the petitioner had completed
13
years of satisfactory continuous
service on 25th February, 1987 entitling
her to the grant of personal promotion to
the post of Reader and the scale of pay of
the said post. The respondents have not
pleaded that the petitioner does not satisfy
other specified conditions. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioner had demanded
from the respondents the grant of the
benefit of personal promotion to the post
2All] Imtiyaz Ahmad V. State of U.P. and another

of Reader and the scale of pay of that post
through her representation dated 24th
January, 1989.

13. In the opinion of the Court,
denial
of
the
benefit
of
personal
promotion to the post of Reader and its
pay-scale to the petitioner on the ground
of withdrawal of the Scheme is wholly
arbitrary
and
violative
of
the
constitutional
guarantee
of
equal
treatment envisaged in Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India in as much as
the petitioner had already matured her
right to the grant of personal promotion to
the post of Reader, and to the pay-scale of
the post of Reader and had also demanded
from the respondents for enforcement of
the said right much before the issuance of
the
Government
Order
dated
6th
September, 1990 withdrawing the scheme
of personal promotion to the post of
Reader and to the pay-scale attached
thereto. Moreover, the Governor Order
dated 6th September, 1990 can not be, by
any stretch of imagination, held to operate
retrospectively depriving the petitioner of
the right already accrued to her.

14. It is also relevant to notice that
several
other
incumbents,
similarly
situated as the petitioner was, were
granted the benefit of personal promotion
to the post and pay-scale of Reader as is
evident
from
the
uncontroverted
averments made in paragraph 9 of the
supplementary affidavit of the petitioner
filed on 18th August, 1998, and the
petitioner was singularly left out. If such a
situation is allowed to be countenanced it
will surely result in perpetuation of the
vice
of
discrimination forbidden by
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India.

15. On the facts and circumstances,
noticed herein before, it is absolutely
clear that the petitioner was and is entitled
to the grant of personal promotion to the
post of Reader and to the scale of pay of
the post of Reader in pursuance of the
Government Orders dated 24th June, 1986
and 28th October, 1986, and her claim
therefore is hereby upheld. The direction
of Court contained in its interim order
dated 1st August, 1991 for the grant of
personal promotion to the post of Reader
and scale of pay attached thereto to the
petitioner is made absolute.

16. Subject to what has been said
above, the petition stands disposed of
finally. There is no order as to costs.
Petition Disposed of.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. $*$5:$/ -
7+( +21·%/( 6. $*$5:$/ -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

,PWL\D] $KPDG
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU«2SSRVLWH 3DUWLHV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6KUL %. 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH 3DUWLHV
$*$
6KUL ,. &KDWXUYHGL

,QGLDQ 3HQDO &RGH ± 6HFWLRQ ± QR
SURVHFXWLRQ XQGHU VHFWLRQ ,3& FDQ
EH ODXQFKHG E\ WKH FRPSODLQDQW DIWHU WKH
DSSOLFDWLRQ PDGH E\ WKH DSSOLFDQW XQGHU
VHFWLRQ &U 3& IRU VHQGLQJ WKH
VDPH WR WKH SROLFH IRU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZDV
UHMHFWHG +HOG LQ SDUD