# Kalu Ram v. State of U.P. & another - **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39529 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2000 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalu-ram-v-state-of-u-p-another-39529 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 2ALL] Kalu Ram V State of U.P. & another 41 politicians, but the State Government has been shirking in its responsibility to provide few lakhs of rupees for providing official telephone connections to the Private Secretaries attached with the Judges of this Court. 30. We are of the view that it was not at all necessary for the Chief Justice to have framed a Rule in that regard and send it for the approval of the Governor as the matter did not pertain to salary, allowances, leave or pension. In the instant case approval of the Governor was not at all necessary for the simple reason that the matter pertains to provision of a facility, which is being enjoyed by the Private Secretaries attached with the Secretaries of the Government of U.P. and which is necessary for the cause of dispensation of justice. 31. The status of the Judges of this Court is much above the status of the Secretaries to the State Government. It is even higher in comparison to the Secretaries to the Central Government. There existed no reason as to why the Private Secretaries attached to the Judges of this Court, who discharge their difficult duties under the umbrella of the Chief Justice, be denied a facility which is available to their counter-parts in the U.P. Secretariat. 32. In view of what has been indicated herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to immediately provide the official telephone connections to the Private Secretaries, attached to the Judges of this Court, at their residences and the telephone bills be paid from the High Court funds. The State Government is directed to provide funds for that purpose within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 33. However, it is provided that the expenses, which the Private Secretaries have incurred in installation of telephone connections be not paid from the High Court funds, but their telephone bills will be paid by the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court may fix number of calls, which the Private Secretaries will make. The S.T.D. facility may be provided to the Private Secretaries, but the charges of S.T.D. calls may be paid by the Private Secretaries, if Hon'ble the Chief Justice so desires. Petition Allowed. ---------- 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< - 7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI .DOX 5DP «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 6HFUHWDU\ 5XUDO (QJLQHHULQJ 6HUYLFHV /XFNQRZ DQRWKHU « 5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 'U +1 7ULSDWKL &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6& &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 6HUYLFH /DZ WHUPLQDWLRQ RUGHU SDVVHG RQ WKH JURXQG ZKLOH DW WKH WLPH RI JHWWLQJ WKH MRE WKH GLSORPD FHUWLILFDWH ZDV SURGXFHG IURP D ERG\ QRW UHFRJQLVHG HLWKHU E\ WKH 6WDWH RU &HQWUDO *RYHUQPHQW DIWHU ODSV RI \HDUV WKH YDOLGLW\ RI 'LSORPD &HUWLILFDWH FDQ QRW EH H[DPLQHG WHUPLQDWLRQ RUGHU LOOHJDO +HOG ,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V 'LSORPD VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG DW WKH WLPH RI DSSRLQWLQJ KLP LQ WKH \HDU RU ZLWKLQ D UHDVRQDEOH SHULRG WKHUHDIWHU EXW WKLV PDWWHU FDQQRW EH H[DPLQHG DIWHU D JDS RI RU \HDUV DV WKDW ZRXOG EH ZKROO\ DUELWUDU\ 3DUD 42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 &DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG AIR 1978 SC 597 AIR 1990 SC 371 By the Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The petitioner is challenging the impugned termination order dated 7.4.99(Annexure 12 to the writ petition). The petitioner was appointed in the year 1963 as Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh Government. At the time of termination of service he was working as Executive Engineer. Thus the petitioner has put in about 36 years service. Now the impugned termination order dated 7.4.99 has been passed in which it has been stated that the petitioner did not possess a Diploma from a recognised institution and hence his initial appointment in the year 1963 was illegal. The Diploma, which the petitioner has, is from Asia Engineering Institute, New Delhi and it is alleged that this body is not recognised by the Central or State Government. 2. In our opinion it is not open to the respondents to suddenly wake up after a gap of 35 years and declare that the petitioner's certificate which he obtained before entering service in the year 1963 was not a recognised certificate, and hence the petitioner's initial appointment in the year 1963 is invalid. The petitioner has been working since the year 1963 onwards until the date of the termination order and thereafter he was working in pursuance of the order, of this Court dated 26.4.99, but he has not been paid his salary after the date of termination. 3. In our opinion the validity of the petitioner's Diploma should have been considered at the time of appointing him in the year 1963 or within a reasonable period thereafter, but this matter can not be examined after a gap of 35 or 36 years, as that would be wholly arbitrary. As held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The view we are taking also finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (AIR 1990 SC 371, vide paragraph 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case we allow the Petition and quash the impugned order dated 7.4.99. The petitioner shall be paid his arrears of salary within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. ----------- 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 6+ 7+( +21·%/( 6+$5$=$ - $5$=$ - 7+( +21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5< - 7+( +21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5< - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI %KROD 1DWK