# Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 755
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17480 of 2000
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/electricity-board-v-jarina-bee-smt-40192
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S.C.

Service-Transfer/adjustment-of class IV
employee-outside the Division-against
policy of State Govt.-where class IV
employees
were
already
excess
of
sanctioned posts- the order cancelling
petitioner's confirmation already stayed
by this Hon'ble Court- which is pending-
act
respondents
faulty-
cannot
be
valued-hence, quashed.

Service-Transfer/adjustment-of class IV
employee
outside
the
Divisiontransfer/adjustment order other class IV
employee either stayed or cancelledimpugned order can not sustain-hence,
quashed.

Held- Para 10

There
is
another
important
factor
bearing on the case of the petitioner that
he has been adjusted/transferred when
adjustment/transfer
orders
of
other
class IV employees working in the
Allahabad Circle have been either stayed
by order dated 5.2.2000 of this Court
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
passed in Writ Petition No. 7940 of 2000
and Writ Petition No. 7941 of 2000 or
cancelled by order dated 31.3.2000 of
respondent no. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ
petition).
Therefore,
the
adjustment/transfer order impugned in
respect of the petitioner can not be said
to be valued.

## Text

3 All] Radhey Shyam V. Chief Engineer and another
755
letter dated 20th December, 1971 is as
under:

"(2) In this connection, I may add
that I do not know about its genuineness
as the signature of the Head Master of the
institution was neither made before me on
the certificate nor I yet recognize the
specimen of his signature. I submitted the
certificate to the Bank in full confidence
of its being genuine and had no intention
to defraud the bank. My intention had
never been to obtain any appointment in
the bank by way of fraudulent methods. I
am victim of my own foolishness that I
believed the school teacher under the
influence of the old established traditions
of teachers of the schools, who it appears
to had misguided me and sent me a forged
certificate, for the reasons best known to
him."

7. It appears that the School Leaving
Certificate of the petitioner was a
fabricated one either by the petitioner
himself or by the teacher.His services
were terminated before confirmation of
his service. He would be deemed to have
continued on probation.

8. In view of the admission of the
petitioner himself that he had in his own
foolishness submitted a forged School
leaving certificate no relief can be
granted.
The
compensation
of
Rs.
10,000/- awarded to him on the basis of
wages in 1972 is sufficient. The question
of back wages or compensation lies in the
discretion of Labour Court and this Court
has no right to intefere as held by
Supreme Court in case of M.P. State
Electricity Board Vs. Jarina Bee ( Smt.)
( 2003) 6 SCC-141.

9. For these reasons it is not a fit
case for interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The Petition is
dismissed. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17480 of 2000

Radhey Shyam

...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Engineer & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Service-Transfer/adjustment-of class IV
employee-outside the Division-against
policy of State Govt.-where class IV
employees
were
already
excess
of
sanctioned posts- the order cancelling
petitioner's confirmation already stayed
by this Hon'ble Court- which is pending-
act
respondents
faulty-
cannot
be
valued-hence, quashed.

Service-Transfer/adjustment-of class IV
employee
outside
the
Divisiontransfer/adjustment order other class IV
employee either stayed or cancelledimpugned order can not sustain-hence,
quashed.

Held- Para 10

There
is
another
important
factor
bearing on the case of the petitioner that
he has been adjusted/transferred when
adjustment/transfer
orders
of
other
class IV employees working in the
Allahabad Circle have been either stayed
by order dated 5.2.2000 of this Court
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
passed in Writ Petition No. 7940 of 2000
and Writ Petition No. 7941 of 2000 or
cancelled by order dated 31.3.2000 of
respondent no. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ
petition).
Therefore,
the
adjustment/transfer order impugned in
respect of the petitioner can not be said
to be valued.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

2. The petitioner was working in the
office of Superintending Engineer, Rural
Engineering Service, Allahabad Circle
(hereinafter called as R.E.S.) since
1.12.1987 against a substantive post on
adhoc basis. He was appointed on
9.1.1991 against a vacant substantive post
of peon, a class IV post in the office of
Superintending Engineer, R.E.S. and was
confirmed on the post vide Order No. 81
dated 27.4.1996 (Annexure No.2 to the
writ petition). Five persons namely, Sri
Gyan Dutt Kushwaha, Sri Shiv Kumar,
Sri Harish Chandra Pal, Sri Virendra
Kumar and Sri Raj Kishore Bharti who
were appointed in other circle in regular
vacancies, were the adhoc appointees. All
of them were working as peon/class IV
employees and got their transfers from
other circles and joined the Allahabad
circle of R.E.S. on 16.6.1994, 5.5.1999,
8.5.1999,1.7.1993
and
12.7.1996
respectively. It is alleged that since there
were only four sanctioned class IV posts
in the Allahabad Circle office of R.E.S.
Sri Shiv Kumar, Sri Harish Chandra Pal,
Sri Virendra Kumar and Sri Raj Kishore
Bharti who were earlier transferred from
other circles to Allahabad Circle vide
order
dated
5.2.2000
passed
by
respondent no.1 so that there may not be
any surplus class IV employees in
Allahabad Circle.

3.

Aggrieved
by
their
adjustment/transfer order dated 5.2.2000
Sri Virendra Kumar and Sri Raj Kishore
Bharti filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
7940 of 2000 and Sri Shiv Kumar and Sri
Harish Chandra filed Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 7941 of 2000 before this
Court. By order dated 15.02.2000 the
effect and operation of the aforesaid order
No. 206 dated 5.2.2000 of respondent
no.1 was stayed by this Court.

4. It is further alleged that
appointment order dated 9.1.1991 and the
confirmation order dated 27.4.1996 in
respect of the petitioner was cancelled
arbitrarily and without giving opportunity
of hearing by order dated 16.3.2000 of
respondent no.2 which is as under:

"dk;kZy; v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k lsok]
ifje.My&bykgkcknA

i=kad% 933@xzk0v0ls0@LFkk@O;k0i0@99-2000

fnukad
16-032000
dk;kZy;&vkns'k

Jh jk/ks';ke fo'odekZ] pijklh ftudh fu;qfDr osru
Øe 305&360 esa vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] xzkeh.k vfHk;U=.k
lsok] iz[k.M& okjk.klh ds vkns'k la[;k lh&20 fnukad
12&11&87 }kjk rnFkZ@vLFkkbZ :i ls dh x;h Fkh rFkk
ftudh fofu;ferhdj.k gsrq p;u lfefr xfBr dj v/kh{k.k
vfHk;Urk xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k lsok] ifje.My] bykgkckn ds
vkns'k la0&4951 fnukad 9&1&91 }kjk mDr p;u lfefr
ds laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh ds vkoafVr inksa ds
fo:) vkns'k ds fuxZr frfFk ls fu;fer ,oa vLFkkbZ :i ls
fu;qfDr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds lEcU/k esa lUnfHkZr vkns'k ds Øe
esa eq[; vfHk;Urk iwohZ {ks= 1⁄4xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k lsok] m0iz0
y[kuÅ ds i= la0-4282 fnukad 9&2&2000 ds }kjk
funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd mDr vkns'k 'kklukns'k la0
15@18@86-O;k-1-1989 fnukad 7&8&89 }kjk vf/klwfpr1⁄2
m0iz0 yksd lsok vk;ksx ds ckgj inksa ij 1⁄4f}rh; la'kks/ku1⁄2
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Radhey Shyam V. Chief Engineer and another
757
1989 ds vuq:i ugha gSA ;g fu;ekoyh 1&10&86 ls iwoZ
rnFkZ fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa ds fofu;fefrdj.k gsrq izHkkoh gSA

vr% Jh jk/ks';ke fo'odekZ] pijklh ds fofu;fefrdj.k gsrq
fd;k x;k vkns'k la0&4951 fnukad 9&1&91 ,rn~}kjk
fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA QyLo:i Jh jk/ks';ke fo'odekZ rnFkZ
gks tkrs gSaA ftuds dkj.k Jh fo'odekZ] pijklh dks bl
dk;kZy; ds vkns'k la0&81 fnukad 27&4&96 }kjk ftudk
uke Øe la0 4 ij vafdr gS dk fd;k x;k LFkkbZdj.k
vkns'k Hkh ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
g0
v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk
xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k lsok]
ifje.My&bykgkcknA "

5. Aggrieved by order dated
16.3.2000 the petitioner filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 14662 of 2000 before
this Court in which order was stayed by
this Court by order dated 29.3.2000.

6. Respondent no. 1 thereafter by the
impugned
order
dated
31.3.2000
cancelled the order of transfer/adjustment
dated 5.2.2000 in respect of aforesaid Sri
Shiv Kumar and Sri Harish Chandra Pal
and the petitioner was adjusted/transferred
to Varanasi Circle of Rural Engineering
Service inspite of the fact that this Court
by its order dated 29.3.2000 had stayed
the operation of order dated 16.3.2000
cancelling the confirmation and regular
appointment of the petitioner treating the
petitioner as adhoc employee.

7. Aggrieved by aforesaid order
dated 31.3.2000 the petitioner filed the
present writ petition before this Court.
The Court by its order dated 11.4.2000
stayed the effect and operation of the
aforesaid
order
dated
31.3.2000
connecting W.P. No.14662 of 2000 with
the present Writ Petition. The order dated
31.3.2000 is as under:

"dk;kZy; eq[; vfHk;ark] xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k lsok] iwohZ {ks=
m0iz0 y[kuÅA

i=kad%
506/xzk0v0ls0/22-LFk0-2/LFkkuk0
lek;kstu/99-2000 fn0

dk;kZy; vkns'k

bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k la0&206/xzk0v0ls0/22LFkk0-2/LFkkuk0-lek;kstu/99-2000 fn0 5-2-2000
ds vkaf'kd la'kks/ku esa fuEufyf[kr prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dk
muds uke ds lEeq[k LrEHk 4 esa vafdr ifje.My esa fd;k
x;k lek;kstu@LFkkukUrj.k ifje.My Lrj ls izkIr lwpuk
dks leh{kk djus ,oa izkIr izfrosnuksa ij lE;d :i ls fopkj
djus ds mijkUr fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

Ø0
la0
uke
dk;Zjr@LFkku
Lkek;kstu@
LFkkukUrj.k
dk LFkku
1
2
3
4
1-
Jh Kku flag
iz[k.M&bVkok
ifj0&QStkckn
2-
Jh f'ko dqekj
ifj0&bykgkckn ifj0&okjk.klh
3-
Jh gfj'pUnz iky ifj0&bykgkckn ifj0&okjk.klh

1⁄4v:.k dqekj xxZ1⁄2
eq[; vfHk;Urk]
xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k lsok] iwohZ {ks=]
m0iz0 y[kuÅA"

8. It is contended by the counsel for
the petitioner Sri R.K. Mishra that the
present writ petition is not infructuous
because
the
impugned
order
dated
31.5.2000 of respondent no. 1, so far as
the petitioner is concerned, is not a mere
transfer order and even if it could be
considered a transfer order for the sake of
argument, though not admitted, then a
class IV employee like the petitioner
could at most be transferred within a
Division and not out of the Division in
view
of
the
policy
of
the
State
Government as contained in letter No.
16/3/80 dated 28.5.1981 which provides
that a class IV employee can not normally
be transferred out of a district, and, if
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
necessary, can be transferred within a
Division when the posts are available in
the Division level cadre. It is stated that
the impugned order is an adjustment-cumtransfer order and the fate of the present
writ petition is dependent on the success
or failure of W.P. No. 14662 of 2000
Radhey
Shyam
Vishwakarma
Vs.
Superintending Engineer and another filed
by the petitioner before this Court,
wherein
the
order
dated
16.3.2000
cancelling the appointment and the
subsequent order making the petitioner a
confirmed class IV employee in the
Allahabad Circle of R.E.S. is under
challenge and this Court has stayed the
operation of the order dated 16.3.2000 by
its order dated 29.3.2000. Therefore, if the
aforesaid W.P. No. 14662 of 2000
succeeds and the petitioner will be treated
as appointed on regular basis and a
confirmed
employee
against
the
substantive/vacant post in the Allahabad
Circle of R.E.S., and the question of
adjustment/transfer of the petitioner will
not arise and the impugned order in the
present writ petition is liable to be
quashed by this Court.

9. It is submitted that the question of
adjustment/transfer of peons, class IV
employees, working in the Allahabad
Circle of R.E.S. arose because the number
of class IV employees in the Allahabad
Circle were in excess of sanctioned posts
which is due to the fault of the
respondents because they transferred
many class IV employees at their requests
from other circles where they had been
appointed against vacancies in that circle
to Allahabad circle ignoring the fact that
whether there was a vacancy or not in the
Allahabad Circle.

10. There is another important factor
bearing on the case of the petitioner that
he has been adjusted/transferred when
adjustment/transfer orders of other class
IV employees working in the Allahabad
Circle have been either stayed by order
dated 5.2.2000 of this Court passed in
Writ Petition No. 7940 of 2000 and Writ
Petition No. 7941 of 2000 or cancelled by
order dated 31.3.2000 of respondent no. 1
(Annexure-6
to
the
writ
petition).
Therefore, the adjustment/transfer order
impugned in respect of the petitioner can
not be said to be valued.

11. By order dated 11.4.2000 passed
by this Court the respondents were
directed to file counter affidavit within
two months, but no counter affidavit has
been filed even after a lapse of more than
two years.

12. Transfer/adjustment order is also
against policy decision of transfer dated
28.5.1981. The petitioners are low paid
employees and the order impugned will
cause prejudice to them hence, such order
is liable to be quashed.

13. The writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 5.2.2000 is quashed. No order
as to cost.
---------
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in