# Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, Merrut v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1390
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49946 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-palika-parishad-mawana-merrut-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43139
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules
1966-Rule-31-Additional or temporary
charge of executive officer-by G.O. Dated
24.01.2014-proposal for appointment be
send
to
state
government-District
Magistrate-no
authority
to
give
additional/temporary charge-quashed.
Held: Para-7
A perusal thereof leaves no room for
doubt that any ad hoc or temporary
officiating appointment is within the
jurisdiction of the State Government and
which stands fortified by the judgment in
paragraph 29 aforesaid. The Government
Order dated 24.1.2014 is also to the
same effect.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (1) A.D.J. Page 368.paragraph 29.

## Text

1390
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unit is declared functional by the NOIDA
through a written communication.
7. If there is any court case pending
before any court, it has to be withdrawn
by the allottee. All legal expenses would
be borne by the allottee.
8. In case allotment has been
cancelled due to commercial activities the
restoration of the plot shall only be
considered on submission of affidavit for
not carrying out the commercial activities
in future and on inspection of the site
about closing the commercial activities.
9.
In
case
of
restoration
in
prepossession cases, the allottee shall be
required to get the unit functional as per
terms of the Lease Deed. In such cases
they will have to comply with the clauses
1,2,5,6 & 7, as stated above.
8. Having considered the submissions
raised, we dispose of the writ petition with a
direction to the respondent no. 2, to consider
the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders within two months from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order provided there is no legal
impediment
or
any
other
policy
of
Government Order contrary to the above.
9. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed off.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49946 of 2014
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, Merrut
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anand Kumar
U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules
1966-Rule-31-Additional or temporary
charge of executive officer-by G.O. Dated
24.01.2014-proposal for appointment be
send
to
state
government-District
Magistrate-no
authority
to
give
additional/temporary charge-quashed.
Held: Para-7
A perusal thereof leaves no room for
doubt that any ad hoc or temporary
officiating appointment is within the
jurisdiction of the State Government and
which stands fortified by the judgment in
paragraph 29 aforesaid. The Government
Order dated 24.1.2014 is also to the
same effect.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (1) A.D.J. Page 368.paragraph 29.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Singh
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Anand
Kumar for the respondent no. 4.
2.
The Office of the Executive
Officer of the Nagar Palika, Mawana, was
lying vacant and one Mr. Manoj Kumar
Rastogi was transferred for taking over
charge as such by the State Government.
However, Mr. Rastogi has not taken over
charge
as
yet.
3 All].
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, Merrut Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1391
3. The District Magistrate, Meerut as
an interim measure, pending taking over
charge by a regular appointee, has passed
the impugned order whereby he has
directed the respondent no. 4 Shailendra
Kumar Singh, who is the Executive
Officer, Hastinapur to also additionally
take charge of Nagar Palika Parishad,
Mawana.
4. The petitioner is the Chairman of
the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana and it
is alleged that this order of the District
Magistrate is without jurisdiction keeping
in view the ratio of the decision in the
case of Girdhari Lal Swarnkar Vs. State
of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (1)
A.D.J. page 368. Paragraph 29 of the said
judgment is extracted hereinunder:-
"29- The U.P. Palika (Centralized)
Service Rules, 1966, do not contemplate
any delegation of powers by the State
Government in the matter of appointment
upon the District Magistrate or any other
authority. Therefore, the Government
Order impugned also suffers from the vice
of excessive delegation."
5. This matter was taken up and we
had called upon the learned Standing
Counsel to obtain instructions about the
exercise of powers by the District
Magistrate in such a contingency keeping
in view the aforesaid decision of the
Court.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has
invited the attention of the Court to the
Government Order dated 24.1.2014 to
urge that the State Government has
already issued instructions as per the
judgment in the case of Girdhari Lal
Swarnkar (Supra) and any such proposal
for additional or temporary charge as
provided under Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika
(Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 has to
be sent to the State Government for
orders. The said rule is extracted
hereinunder:-
"31- Temporary Arrangments- Ad
hoc
and
temporary
officiating
appointments- Notwithstanding anything
contained
in
Rule
21
the
State
Government may
also make ad hoc
appointments or temporary officiating
arrangements for the posts falling vacant
Substantively or temporarily."
7. A perusal thereof leaves no room
for doubt that any ad hoc or temporary
officiating appointment is within the
jurisdiction of the State Government and
which stands fortified by the judgment in
paragraph 29 aforesaid. The Government
Order dated 24.1.2014 is also to the same
effect.
8. There is no ambiguity in the
source of the power available with the
State Government in this regard. The
petitioner therefore is correct in her
submission that the District Magistrate
did not have any jurisdiction to pass any
order with regard to such arrangment as
per Rule 31 aforesaid.
9. The writ petition therefore
deserves to be allowed. The impugned
order dated 12.8.2014 Annexure 1 to the
writ petition is quashed leaving it open to
the State Government-respondent no. 1 to
pass an appropriate order with regard to
proposal of appointment of the Executive
Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad
concerned in accordance with law.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE