# Narendra Kumar Tripathi v. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 136
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-08-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-kumar-tripathi-v-the-secretary-minor-irrigation-department-lucknow-39901
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Seniority- Petitioner initially appointed
on
18.1.83
on
work
charge
basis-
regularised
on
14.12.89-
Rural
Engineering Services (Group B) 1993
came into force on 10.6.93- hence the
seniority would be counted from the date
of initial appointment e.g. 18.1.83.

Held- Para 7
In our opinion this decision squarely
applies to the facts of the present case.
Admittedly the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Engineer on 18.1.83 when
the Service Rules 1993 had not come
into
force.
Subsequently
he
was
confirmed also. It is settled law that
seniority is to be counted from the date
of continuous officiating on the post in
view of the above decision of the
Supreme Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1960 SC 1607

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Ultimately the impugned order dated
10.8.2001 was passed rejecting the claim
of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has referred to the
case of Jagdish Prasad Gaur, lecturer in
Commerce in I.P. College, Bulandshahr in
which Dr. Gaur was granted the same
benefit being claimed by the petitioner
vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

6. We have perused the order dated
19.2.1996 Annexure 4 to the writ petition
in the case of Dr. Gaur and we find that
Dr. Gaur has been given the same benefit
being claimed by the petitioner in this
case. We cannot see how the respondents
can discriminate against the petitioner
when a similar benefit has been given to
Dr. Gaur. Any such discrimination will
violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

7. For the reasons given above, this
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.8.2001 is quashed. A mandamus
is issued to the respondent to add the
service of the petitioner in Awadhesh
Pratap Singh University, Rewa to her
present service and give all consequential
benefits.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2001

Narendra Kumar Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
The
Secretary,
Minor
Irrigation
Department, Lucknow ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri T.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Seniority- Petitioner initially appointed
on
18.1.83
on
work
charge
basis-
regularised
on
14.12.89-
Rural
Engineering Services (Group B) 1993
came into force on 10.6.93- hence the
seniority would be counted from the date
of initial appointment e.g. 18.1.83.

Held- Para 7
In our opinion this decision squarely
applies to the facts of the present case.
Admittedly the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Engineer on 18.1.83 when
the Service Rules 1993 had not come
into
force.
Subsequently
he
was
confirmed also. It is settled law that
seniority is to be counted from the date
of continuous officiating on the post in
view of the above decision of the
Supreme Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1960 SC 1607

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Narendra Kumar Tripathi V. The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. 137
26.12.2000, Annexure 1 to the writ
petition
by
which
petitioner's
representation had been rejected by the
State Government.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was selected and
appointed as Work Engineer on work
charge basis by order dated 18.1.83 a
selection committee was constituted and
after taking into account the satisfactory
work of the petitioner he was appointed as
Assistant
Engineer
by
order
dated
14.12.89. A seniority list of the Assistant
Engineer of Rural Engineering Service
was published by the department on
4.1.95 wherein the petitioner's name was
placed at serial no. 274 showing petitioner
seniority with effect from 14.12.89.
Photostat copy of the seniority list dated
4.1.95 is Annexure 6. A perusal of the
seniority list shows that persons placed at
Serial no. 8 to 64 were regularized vide
order dated 15.4.85 w.e.f. 14.5.79, and
similarly person placed at serial no. 132
was regularised by order dated 17.1.90
w.e.f. 13.5.84. One Subhash Singh whose
name is at serial no. 8 was given the
benefit of his previous service and his
seniority fixed accordingly. However
petitioner was not given any benefit of his
previous service in the department. Hence
he
has
made
representations
dated
10.3.1995 and 25.5.98 claiming seniority
from the date of his initiate appointment
that is 18.1.83 vide Annexures 7 and 8.
He made further representations and copy
of the last representation dated 6.5.2000 is
Annexure 2 to the writ petition. However
by
the
impugned
order
the
said
representation has been rejected.

3. It appears that the State
Government had not made any Service
Rules for the department prior to 1993
governing service conditions of Assistant
Engineer in the Department of Rural
Engineering Service, U.P. For the first
time
on
10.6.93
the
U.P.
Rural
Engineering (Group B) Service Rules,
1993 came into force i.e. much after the
petitioners initial appointment on 18.1.83
and regularisation order dated 14.12.89 .
Hence the petitioner has alleged that he
ought to have been regularised in
accordance with the executive direction
and government order from 18.1.83. True
copy of the Service Rules, 1993 is
Annexure 10.

Aggrieved this writ petition has been
filed in this record.

4. The petitioner filed amendment
application and impleaded several persons
as
respondents
vide
order
dated
25.11.2002.
By
an
amendment
application, the petitioner has challenged
seniority list dated 14.12.2001 which has
been
annexed
to
the
amendment
application.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the State Government . In para 5 it is
stated that the petitioner was not given
regular appointment by the department
vide G.O. dated 14.12.89. It is stated in
para 7 that adhoc services ;had not been
added for the purposes of seniority list.
The petitioner representation has been
duly considered and rejected. In para it is
stated that the petitioner's service was
regularised by G.O. dated 14.12.89 in
term of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc
Appointment (within the purview of
Public Service Commission) Rules 1979.
In para 13 it is stated that prior to the
coming into force of the Service Rules
regarding determination of seniority, the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
G.O. dated 9.4.80 was issued containing
draft service rules.

Rejoinder Affidavit has also been
filed and we have perused the same.

6. In Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers Association Versus
State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 SC 1607
it was held by the Supreme Court that
seniority has to be counted from the date
of appointment and not according to the
date of confirmation.

7. In our opinion this decision
squarely applies to the facts of the present
case. Admittedly the petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Engineer on
18.1.83 when the Service Rules 1993 had
not come into force. Subsequently he was
confirmed also . It is settled law that
seniority is to be counted from the date of
continuous officiating on the post in view
of the above decision of the Supreme
Court.

8. Following the said decision, this
writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 26.12.2000 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to fix petitioner's
seniority with effect from the date of his
initial appointment on 18.1.83. The
seniority
list
shall
be
rectified
accordingly.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Revision No. 135 of 2003

Hari Kishan

...Plaintiff
Versus
Pravin Kumar Garg and others

 ...Defendants

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arjun Singhal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ram Mohan
Sri Niraj Pandey

Code of Civil Procedure- Order 17 r. 2-
Plaintiff and his counsel remained absent
on
the
date
fixed-
Trial
court
by
impugned order directed the defendant
to lead evidence- order set a side
provided the plaintiff deposits Rs.5000/-
with the trial court which shall be
withdrawn by the caveator respondent-
son of the plaintiff being advocate
unnecessarily delaying the proceeding of
court- suit for partition pending since
1991- court held the plaintiff/revisionist
guilty for abusing the process of court.

Held- Para 4

In view of the fair stand taken by the
defendant- respondent before me and
the cumulative circumstances of the case
as well as in the interest of justice I
quash the judgment and order dated
3.1.2003. The original suit shall be
restored to its original number and heard
by the court below on the date fixed by
the trial court on receiving certified copy
of this judgment. The above order is,
however, subject to the condition that
the plaintiff deposits a sum of Rs.5000/-
before the trial court on the next date
fixed by the said court, as otherwise this