# Krishna Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1078
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-24
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 3282 of 2006
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kant-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43083
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
law-consequential benefits-entitlement-
3 All]. Krishna Kant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079
when dismissal order-quashed-become
final-along
with
arrears
of
salarypetitioner entitled for selection grade
and promotional pay in view of G.O.
03.06.89-word
consequential
benefitincludes flowing as consequence on
corollary-entitled
for
selection
and
promotion
grade-necessary
direction
given.

Held: Para-8 & 15

## Text

1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Forestry dated 25-10-2004. In the said
report he had given the break up of the
petitioner's working. It shows that the
petitioner has worked for 348 days in the
year 1990-91, 350 days in the year 1991-92,
351 days in the year 1992-93, 355 days in
the year 1993-94, 353 days in the year 199495 and 230 days in the year 1995-96. He has
also drawn my attention to the counter
affidavit of respondents in earlier with
petition No. 19670/02 filed by the petitioner,
wherein it was clearly admitted by the
respondents in paragraph 5 of the Counter
affidavit that the petitioner had regularly
worked from the year 1978-79 to 1994-95
and had also worked for 230 days in the
year 1995-96 and 180 days in the year
1996-97. Therefore, in view of the
admission of respondents on record the
recital in the impugned order that the
petitioner had not worked for a single day
between the year 1991 and 1996 is
factually incorrect and against the
records. Accordingly, the rejection of the
representation of the petitioner on the
above ground is wholly unsustainable
and, as such, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed.

21. In Janardan Yadav case (supra),
this Court while considering the matter of
regularization of a class-IV employee
under the U.P. Regularization of Daily
Wages Appointment on Group 'D' Posts
Rules, 2001 has held that for the purpose
of regularization, the only requirement is
that the incumbent should have been
appointed directly on the daily wages
before
29.6.1991
and
should
be
continued, as such, on 21.12.2001. The
said rules nowhere requires that such an
incumbent seeking regularization would
have worked throughout continuously
from the date of his initial appointment
till the date of enforcement of the rules.

22. From a perusal of number of
working days as mentioned by the petitioner
in his writ petition, which clearly shows that
the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988
and remained in service and worked
continuously
till
2006
even-after
the
enforcement of the Regularization Rules.

23. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 11.10.2006 is hereby set aside
and quashed. The matter is remanded to
the authority concerned to reconsider the
matter.

24. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed and the respondents
are directed to reconsider the matter of the
petitioner for regularization in the light of
the observations made above within six
weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

25. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.09.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Service Single No. 3282 of 2006

Krishna Kant Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Smt. Seema
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
law-consequential benefits-entitlement-
3 All]. Krishna Kant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079
when dismissal order-quashed-become
final-along
with
arrears
of
salarypetitioner entitled for selection grade
and promotional pay in view of G.O.
03.06.89-word
consequential
benefitincludes flowing as consequence on
corollary-entitled
for
selection
and
promotion
grade-necessary
direction
given.

Held: Para-8 & 15
8. The word "consequential" would
mean that flowing as a 'consequence' or
a 'corollary'. The dictionary describes
'corollary' as a proposition which can be
inferred from one already proved as self
evidently true i.e., a natural consequence
or result, the benefit or advantage or
entitlement under an arrangement.

15. The petitioner has not actually
worked in the department having been
ousted, pursuant to an order of dismissal
which was ultimately found illegal and
set aside by this Court. Prior to that,
service record of petitioner whether
contain good, bad or otherwise entry has
not been disclosed or shown anywhere
and, therefore, it is difficult to accept
that
petitioner's
service
was
not
satisfactory,
particularly
when
this
aspect was not considered by competent
authority and no order is said to have
been passed thereupon.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents
to grant him benefit of selection grade,
promotional pay scale in compliance of
the judgment dated 24.05.2014 passed in
Writ Petition No.294(S/B) of 2000 and
also
entire
arrears
of
salary
and
consequential retiral benefits along with
interest at the rate of 18%.

2. The facts giving rise to the
present petition are as under:

3. The petitioner was appointed as
Collection Amin in the year 1957. He was
suspended on 30.06.1982. A charge sheet
was issued on 30.06.1982 containing four
charges alleging that the petitioner is
guilty for misconduct of dereliction of
duty, doubtful integrity, lack of devotion
of duty and embezzlement of the amount
collected from defaulters, in exercise of
his
duty
as
Collection
Amin.
On
completion
of
departmental
enquiry,
which was conducted ex parte, observing
that petitioner did not respond to the
charge sheet by submitting reply, the
District Magistrate, Gorakhpur who is
disciplinary authority of the petitioner,
passed an order of punishment of
dismissal on 03.10.1982. Petitioner's
appeal against the dismissal order was
dismissed by Commissioner, Gorakhpur
vide
order
dated
07.09.1983.
The
petitioner thereafter preferred revision
before Board of Revenue, which too, was
rejected as communicated by Joint
Secretary of Board of Revenue to the
Commissioner
vide
letter
dated
14.05.1985. Aggrieved thereto, petitioner
assailed dismissal order and consequential
appellate order before the U.P. Public
Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition
No.225/I/1986. The claim petition was
dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment
dated 19.11.1997 whereagainst petitioner
preferred Writ Petition No.294(SB) of
2000, wherein, a Division Bench of this
Court held that enquiry report was
submitted without fixing any date for oral
inquiry
and
without
giving
any
opportunity to defend, hence the entire
proceedings are illegal. Vide judgment
dated 24.05.2004, the Court quashed the
order of punishment dated 03.10.1982 as
also the judgment of Tribunal. Operative
part of the judgment reads as under:
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"We, therefore, quash the impugned
order of punishment dated 3.10.1982 and the
order dated 19.11.1997 passed by the
Tribunal. Since the petitioner has retired from
service about 14 years back, there is no
occasion for this court to order of holding a
fresh enquiry. The petitioner would be entitled
for all consequential benefits, as such.

The petition is allowed. No order as
to costs."

4. Since the petitioner was not granted
all consequential benefits, hence he preferred
a Contempt Petition No.1381(C) of 2005, in
which, notices were issued and thereafter the
District Magistrate, Gorakhpur passed an
order for payment of arrears of salary for the
period of October 1982 to July 1989. Since
the petitioner attained age of superannuation
in July 1989, therefore, arrears of salary was
paid till date of retirement of petitioner.
Subsequently, retiral benefits were also paid.

5. The respondents, however, did not
consider petitioner's claim for grant of
selection grade and promotional pay scale
which became available to him in view of the
G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989 whereby benefits
had been given w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The
petitioner
made
representation
dated
28.06.2006. Despite that, nothing has been
done.

6. Learned Standing Counsel pleaded,
since "consequential benefits" would not
include benefit of arrears etc., therefore, the
same was not granted. In the alternative, he
contended that service of petitioner was not
satisfactory, which is condition precedent for
grant of selection grade or promotional grade,
hence petitioner is not entitled for the same.

7. The first question, therefore,
would
be
as
to
"what
the
term
"consequential benefits" means, and,
secondly, "whether it would cover the
claim of petitioner for consideration of
selection grade and promotional pay
scale".

8. The word "consequential" would
mean that flowing as a 'consequence' or a
'corollary'.
The
dictionary
describes
'corollary' as a proposition which can be
inferred from one already proved as self
evidently true i.e., a natural consequence
or result, the benefit or advantage or
entitlement under an arrangement.

9. In this regard, I find support from
the Apex Court's decision in R.M. Ramaul
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
AIR 1991 SC 1171. Therein the dispute of
seniority was decided in favour of R.M.
Ramaul but there was no further direction
in the Court's order with respect to
consequential benefits, promotion or
monetary benefits etc. His seniority was
restored, whereupon, it was found that
junior was promoted to the post of Deputy
General Manager w.e.f. 28.05.1982. Sri
Ramaul was considered and promoted
w.e.f.
28.05.1982.
His
period
of
promotion
from
28.05.1982
to
03.09.1986, i.e., the date of actual
promotion, was treated to be a notional
promotion without any benefit. This
denial of monetary benefit was held
invalid and in consistent to the ultimate
decision. The Apex Court observed as
under:

"The withholding of the monetary
benefits in respect of this period is
inconsistent with what was decided in the
judgment and what complainant was
clearly entitled to. Since there was no
specific direction in this behalf in the
order, technically, there may be no case
3 All]. Krishna Kant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1081
for punishment for contempt; but we
make it clear that the promotion for the
period from 28-5-1982 to 3-9-1986
should be accompanied by the monetary
benefits."

10. The Court further found that R.M.
Ramaul also became eligible for promotion
to the post of Additional General Manager
on 05.05.1987, on which date, one of his
junior, N.K. Sharma was already promoted.
The Court directed that as a fall-out of
restoration of seniority, R.M. Ramaul would
also be entitled to be considered for further
promotion to the post of Additional General
Manager and, if found fit, it would be
notional promotion for the period the post
remained in existence, since subsequently
post was abolished, and hence no monetary
benefit shall be made from the date the post
was abolished.

11. This judgment clearly fortifies
the view, I am taking, that when a person,
having gained in a Court of law, has been
deprived certain benefits by the employer
for its own fault, cannot be placed in a
situation of loser of something for which,
he is not responsible. In the present case,
the Court has specifically directed that
consequential benefits shall also be
available to petitioners. Nothing has been
shown to this Court that consequential
benefits would not include monetary
benefits of all kinds.

12. The next question now would
be, "whether petitioner is entitled to be
considered for grant of selection grade
and promotional pay in the light of G.O.
Dated 3rd June, 1989".

13. The respondents in the counter
affidavit have pleaded that the work and
conduct of petitioner was not satisfactory,
hence he is not entitled for selection grade
or promotional grade under G.O. Dated
3rd June, 1989. However, it is not the
case of respondents that at any point of
time, petitioner's case has been considered
for
such
grant
by
any
competent
authority.

14. With regard to the question that
the petitioner was not found fit for grant
of selection grade and promotional scale,
I find nothing on record to show that the
competent
authority
actually
has
considered him for grant of such benefits.

15. The respondents have not stated
in the counter affidavit that the competent
authority
considered
the
claim
of
petitioner at any point of time for the
purpose of grant of selection grade or
promotional pay scale, as the case may
be, in the light of G.O. Dated 3rd June,
1989 and found him unfit for such benefit.
In the counter affidavit, though it has been
stated that petitioner's service was not
satisfactory but whether this aspect has
been found on consideration, by the
competent
authority,
is
not
stated
anywhere. Without considering the claim
of petitioner for such grant by the
competent authority, it was not open to
the respondents to contest the petitioner's
case by stating on their own that
petitioner's service was not satisfactory.
No material has been placed on record as
to how the respondents found that
petitioner's service was not satisfactory
from October 1982. The petitioner has not
actually worked in the department having
been ousted, pursuant to an order of
dismissal which was ultimately found
illegal and set aside by this Court. Prior to
that, service record of petitioner whether
contain good, bad or otherwise entry has
not been disclosed or shown anywhere
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and, therefore, it is difficult to accept that
petitioner's service was not satisfactory,
particularly when this aspect was not
considered by competent authority and no
order is said to have been passed
thereupon.

16. In view of the above discussion,
this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

17. In the result, writ petition is
allowed. The competent authority is
directed to consider the claim of petitioner
for
grant
of
selection
grade
and
promotional grade, as the case may be, in
the light of G.O. Dated 3rd June, 1989
and pass a reasoned order within two
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. In case
petitioner is found entitled for such
benefit, all consequential benefits, like
refixation of pay, arrears etc. would be
computed and shall be paid within two
months thereafter.

18. The petitioner shall be entitled to
cost which is quantified to Rs.5000/-
(Five thousand only).
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.09.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 3613 of 2013

Chhote Lal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri S.P. Singh, Sri R.P. Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate
Cr.P.C.-Section
482-
Quashing
of
summoning order-offence under Section
138
of
negotiable
instruments
Actcheque itself presented after an year-in
view of Section 138(a) after expiry of
period of six month-cheque lost its
validity-moreover
except
on
contingencies of insufficient amount in
account or excesses amount of demand
dishonored cheque-no offence made outproceeding quashed.

Held: Para-14 & 15
14. An order of summoning is required
to be passed only after considering the
relevant
material
in
context
of
ingredients of the offence allegedly
committed by an accused. The said
exercise has not been done, as is
apparent from the above-noted facts and
circumstances of the case.

15. Section 138, N.I. Act could have
been invoked only if the two conditions,
in the facts of this case, had been
satisfied viz. if the amount of money
standing to the account of the petitioner
was insufficient to honour the cheque; or
in case the cheque amount exceeded the
amount arranged to be paid from that
account by an agreement made with that
bank. None of the conditions stands
satisfied in this case.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Lamba, J.)

1. This petition filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
seeks quashing of order dated 7.7.2011
passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1 in complaint case
No.897 of 2011 titled 'Manju Gupta Vs.
Chhote Lal Singh' under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short 'N.I. Act').

2. Short contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that a
negotiable instrument issued by the
petitioner on 12.4.2010 for a sum of