# Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1466
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19530 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54160
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality on the designation of Dr. Santosh Kumar,
Professor and Head of Department of the Ophthalmology Department of the Motilal Nehru Medical
College, which is known as Manohar Das Regional Eye Institute, Allahabad as the Director-cumProfessor of the said Institute. Thus, Dr. Santosh Kumar being the Head of Department was entitled
to be nominated/ designated as the Director-cum-Professor of the Institute. It has rightly been done
vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College,
Prayagraj, as well as by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. vide order dated 29.08.2025.

25. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court finds that the appointment of Dr. Aparajita
Chaudhary vide order dated 09.05.2025 to the post of Director-cum-Professor is not sustainable in
law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.

26. With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions are disposed of.

27. It is further held, till a separate post of Director-cum-Professor, is specifically created in
the Manohar Das Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Prayagraj, it is the Head of Departmentcum-Professor of the said Institute, who can be designated as Director-cum-professor of the
aforesaid Institute and none else.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1466
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 19530 of 2024

Rajeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether a mandamus can be issued, ordering the Nagar Panchayat and its President, to extend benefits of
the promotion post, including all remuneration w.e.f. the date of promotion order as well as to pay the
petitioner a Clerk's salary from the date of his promotion together with interest?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916: Section 70 - Petitioner did not challenge order
dated 16.05.2018, cancelling his promotion proceedings. Instead, he has applied for a writ of
mandamus to pay him salary according to the apparent tenor of the promotion order passed in
his favour.

Order dated 16.05.2018 was made without hearing the petitioner but was communicated to him. (Para 26)

In the service book relating to the petitioner, a promotion order dated 01.05.2018 finds mention and there is
no cancellation of that order recorded by any competent authority, but the fact remains that the entire
2 All. Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1467
proceedings for the petitioner's promotion were cancelled by the Executive Officer vide order dated
16.05.2018 as non est, since no post was available. The order cancelling the petitioner's promotion
proceedings is recorded in the original records as an order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Executive Officer,
which reads: "Pronnati ki prakriya pad na hone ke karan nirast ki jati hai". (Para 25)

B. It is true that a writ of mandamus is one of the widest import and can be issued to undo
wrongs in the absence of the formality of challenge. But, where the rights are not clear and
orders stand in way, which have to be quashed, and those orders have not been substantially
questioned, it is difficult to quash such orders and grant relief. It is also noteworthy that the order
dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Executive Officer, read together with the circumstance that the petitioner
was never paid his emoluments attached to a Class-III post, would show that the petitioner's promotion, that
he claims to have been made by the President, was never a concluded transaction, in terms of which, his
rights crystallized. It was inchoate. Therefore, it was undone by the Executive Officer by a cancellation
of proceedings for promotion and not a revocation of the promotion order. The endorsement of
the promotion order in the petitioner's service book, which carries no endorsement of its
revocation, would, therefore, be not of much consequence. (Para 27)

C. The inaction for a period of four years is telltale of the fact that the petitioner knew all along
that he had no claim founded on the promotion order. Else, he would have swung into action to
claim higher emoluments, when he was deprived of his higher salary or emoluments within a
month or two. Ever since the petitioner's promotion order was made, though he says that he performed
duties attached to the post of a Clerk, he never claimed emoluments admissible for the promotion post right
from 01.05.2018 until 03.09.2022. He admittedly filed the first of his representations on 03.09.2022, claiming
higher emoluments, addressed jointly to the President and the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat. It is
surprising and very unnatural for a promotee to discharge duties on the promotion post and not claim
emoluments attached to it for as long a period as four years and more. This is a case where the petitioner did
not move at all and continued to receive his Class-IV salary. (Para 28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

List of Acts
 U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

List of Keywords
 promotion, remuneration, employee, vacancy, emoluments, cancel.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, Standing Counsel Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner claims to have been promoted as a Clerk in the employ of the Nagar
Panchayat Khutar, District Shahjahanpur (for short, 'the Nagar Panchayat') from the lower post of a
Class-IV employee. The petitioner says that though promoted by the President of the Nagar
Panchayat vide order dated 01.05.2018, he has not been paid his emoluments for the promotion
post. Instead, he is being remunerated as a Class-IV employee. It is asserted that pursuant to the
promotion order dated 01.05.2018, the petitioner has joined the promotion post and is discharging
duties attached to the post. The petitioner, therefore, prays that a mandamus be issued, ordering the
Nagar Panchayat and its President, to extend benefits of the promotion post, including all
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remuneration w.e.f. 01.05.2018. He has also prayed for the issue of a mandamus to the respondents
to pay him a Clerk's salary from the date of his promotion together with interest.

2. Since a dispute was raised during the hearing of the petition about the genuineness of the
promotion order dated 01.05.2018, signed by the then President of the Nagar Panchayat, Anupam
Shukla, he was impleaded eo nomine under our orders. He was put to notice vide order dated
06.05.2025 and summoned to appear before the Court on 14.05.2025. Anupam Shukla, the former
President of the Nagar Panchayat, appeared in person on 14.05.2025 and verified the contents of
the promotion order as well as his signatures thereon in Court. By an earlier order, original records,
including the petitioner's service book, were summoned. The parties having exchanged affidavits,
the petition was admitted to hearing.

3. Heard Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharad Chandra
Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.
Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned Counsel appearing for the Nagar Panchayat, respondent Nos. 3
and 4. The records produced in original have been perused.

4. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karamchari, a Class-IV
employee, with the Nagar Panchayat, after being selected in accordance with rules and appointed
by the Executive Officer against a supernumerary post. The petitioner was appointed on probation
for a period of one year. He was appointed as aforesaid by the Executive Officer vide order dated
20.06.2008. He joined duties as a Class-IV employee. Later on, upon the death of a regular ClassIV employee, one Ramchandra, in harness on 14.04.2013, the petitioner was placed against
Ramchandra's vacant post, bringing to end his functioning against a supernumerary post. The
petitioner's case is that there were two Class-III employees working in the Nagar Panchayat, one
Anil Singh and the other Rajpal. Rajpal had been promoted as a Clerk on 30.05.1997, after
approval by the Nagar Panchayat Board and following the due process. Rajpal was remunerated as
a Class-III employee, consequent upon his promotion. Rajpal died in harness while serving as a
Clerk on 18.04.2004. A direction was issued on 16.01.2014 by the Director, Local Bodies,
requiring all the Nagar Nigam and Nagar Palika Parishad/ Nagar Panchayat in the State to ensure
promotion of educated Safai Karamchari in accordance with the resolution of a Committee dated
08.11.2013, presided over by the Secretary, Urban Development.

5. The petitioner emphasizes that the Government Order endorsed by the Director, Local
Bodies vide order dated 16.01.2014 was applicable to Safai Karamchari alone, employed in the
Nagar Nigam, Nagar Panchayat and Nagar Palika Parishad, who were educated and not the other
Class-IV employees. The petitioner has come up with a case that the Government Order, that was
endorsed by the Director for compliance in accordance with the resolution of the Committee
presided over by the Secretary, Urban Development, is one dated 04.12.2001. The aforesaid
Government Order provides for promotion of Class-IV employees to Class-III positions, who have
passed the High School or an equivalent examination and served for five years continuously on a
Class-IV post. The Government Order aforesaid provides for promotion to the extent of 15% of the
available vacancies. There is a further provision of 5% vacancies for promotion in the Class-III
cadre out of the Class-IV employees, who have passed their Intermediate examination or any
equivalent, and at the same time, completed five years' continuous service in the Class-IV cadre.
2 All. Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1469
There is, thus, a total of 20% earmarking for promotion amongst Class-III employees from the
Class-IV establishment of a Local Body, like the Nagar Panchayat.

6. The petitioner says that he moved an application on 07.02.2018 to the President of the
Nagar Panchayat, seeking promotion to the post of Clerk, as he was a graduate and had experience
in computer operation. The President of the Nagar Panchayat addressed a memo dated 24.02.2018
to the Director, Local Bodies, seeking the latter's permission to promote the petitioner, pointing out
that a vacancy in the Class-III cadre had occurred due to death in harness of Rajpal, and the
petitioner had a B.A. Degree, besides a computer operator certificate, called a Course on Computer
Concepts (CCC) Certificate. It was pointed out by the President that there was a single incumbent
in the cadre of Class-III post, leading to the Nagar Panchayat's work being affected.

7. In response, the Director, Local Bodies, addressed a memo dated 23.03.2018 to the
President as well as the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, saying that for employees of
non-centralized services, a Local Body was competent to take decisions in service matters. It was
further remarked that since the matter related to an employee of non-centralized service of the
Nagar Panchayat, in regard to whom, the Appointing/ Disciplinary Authority was the President
himself, necessary steps had to be taken by the President. The President was directed to proceed in
accordance with rules in the matter and inform the Directorate. The President caused a proposal to
be placed in the Board Meeting of the Nagar Panchayat held on 27.03.2018, where a unanimous
decision was taken by all the members to promote the petitioner.

8. Following this resolution dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Nagar Panchayat Board, a
Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, 'the DPC') was constituted, as the petitioner avers in
paragraph No.24 of the writ petition, "to initiate the promotion process of Class-IV employees of
Nagar Panchayat Khutar and a seniority list was prepared in which the petitioner was placed at
Serial No. 7." The DPC met on 18.04.2018 and recommended the petitioner's name for promotion
against the vacant Class-III post in the Nagar Panchayat. The recommendations of the DPC dated
18.04.2018 are on record. The candidates, who were senior to the petitioner, were not found
eligible, as they lacked the minimum qualifications prescribed. The petitioner's candidature was
considered and not only found eligible, but also fit. Acting on the recommendations of the DPC, the
President of the Nagar Panchayat, vide promotion order dated 01.05.2018, promoted the petitioner
to the post of a Clerk in the Nagar Panchayat and a copy of the order was forwarded to the Director,
Local Bodies.

9. The petitioner submitted a joining report, in compliance with the promotion order passed by
the President, also on 01.05.2018, which was accepted. The petitioner says that he has been
regularly discharging his duties in the clerical cadre ever-since his promotion on 01.05.2018, but
has not been remunerated as a Class-III employee till date. He is still being paid the salary of a
Class-IV employee. Though, the petitioner asserts in paragraph No.33 of the writ petition that he
has been regularly representing in the matter to the President, Nagar Panchayat as well as the
Executive Officer, claiming his remuneration, attached to a Class-III post and designation of the
said post, the first of the representations that the petitioner has annexed is one dated 03.09.2022. It
is also asserted that non-payment of salary to the petitioner attached to a Class-III post is
discriminatory and arbitrary. There is no reason to deny him the higher salary.
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat - one on behalf of
the Executive Officer, and the other, on behalf of the President of the Nagar Panchayat, that is to
say, respondent Nos.3 and 4. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director,
Local Bodies, Government of U.P., Lucknow, respondent No.2. Besides these, an affidavit dated
14.12.2024 has been filed on behalf of the then Executive Officer, Satyendra Prakash. The
foremost objection that has been taken in this affidavit is that the State Government had sanctioned
one post of Clerk, one post of Watchman-cum-Peon and five posts of Sweeper vide letter dated
20.04.1987, and thereafter, no post of Clerk/ Class-III employee has been sanctioned by the
Government. It is conceded that in case of emergency, employees of this rank can be appointed by
the President under Section 70 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short, 'the Act of 1916'),
but it is averred that there is one sanctioned post of a Class-III employee with the Nagar Panchayat,
against which, Anil Kumar Singh is appointed and discharging his duties. The stand in brief,
therefore, in this affidavit is that against the solitary post of Clerk in the establishment of the Nagar
Panchayat, Anil Kumar Singh is already working and there was no scope for the President to
promote the petitioner to a Class-III post.

11. In the counter affidavit dated 05.01.2025, that has been filed by the Executive Officer, the
stand is essentially the same, and it is averred that since there is one post of a Class-III employee,
against which Anil Kumar Singh is functioning, the petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee, is
being paid his salary as such. It is averred in paragraph No.16 of this affidavit that against the
recommendations of the DPC dated 18.04.2018 and the promotion order dated 01.05.2018, passed
by the President of the Nagar Panchayat, promoting the petitioner to a Class-III post, several
complaints were lodged on the Integrated Grievance Redressal System of the State Government.
An office report was invited from Anil Kumar Singh, a Clerk in the establishment of the Nagar
Panchayat, who mentioned in his report that there is no sanctioned post for promoting the petitioner
to a Class-III position. On the basis of the said report, the Executive Officer submitted a report to
the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Shahjahanpur dated 23.12.2018 saying
that though proceedings were taken to promote the petitioner by the then President and the then
Executive Officer, but, in the absence of a vacant post in the Class-III cadre to place the petitioner
against, no promotion was granted to him. It is averred in paragraph No.17 of the counter affidavit
that the petitioner was never paid the benefits attached to the post of a Class-III employee and
proceedings for his promotion were cancelled by the Executive Officer vide order dated
18.05.2018, of which the petitioner is well aware.

12. It is also asserted that the petitioner did not take any step against the order dated
18.05.2018, declining his promotion and cancelling proceedings thereof. It is acknowledged that
the Executive Officer had certified in Form-I the cadre strength of Class-III employees in the Nagar
Panchayat as two, but there is only one sanctioned post of a Class-III employee. There is a
reference to the details of the affairs of the Nagar Panchayat for the financial years 2019-20, 202021 and 2021-22 submitted by the Executive Officer, where only one sanctioned post of a Class-III
employee in the Nagar Panchayat establishment finds place. A copy of the relevant information in
Form-I is annexed to the counter affidavit dated 05.01.2025.

13. There is another counter affidavit, also dated 05.01.2025, which has been filed by the
President of the Nagar Panchayat, where the stand taken is the same that there is a single post of a
2 All. Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1471
Class-III employee, against which, Anil Kumar Singh is functioning. There was no scope for the
former President to have promoted the petitioner and those proceedings taken in favour of the
petitioner are of no consequence.

14. The last of the counter affidavits is the one filed by the Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow.
Here too, the stand taken is clearly encapsuled in paragraph No.8 of this counter affidavit, which
reads:

"8. That it is respectfully submitted that as per the Government Order No. 1509/9-1-8745-NaVi-ANU-1 dated 20.04.1987, there is only one sanctioned post of Clerk in Nagar Panchayat,
Khutar, Shahjahanpur. This sanctioned post is currently occupied by a regularly appointed
employee, Shri Anil Singh, who continues to discharge his duties on the said post. Presently, there
is no vacancy in the Clerk cadre in the Nagar Panchayat, Khutar. True photocopy of the
Government Order dated 20.04.1987 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.
C.A.-1 to this counter affidavit."

15. Rebutting the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director, Local Bodies, a rejoinder
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, where, it is emphasized that there were two working
clerks in the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat prior to the petitioner's promotion. It is pointed
out that one Deenanath was employed as a Clerk with the Nagar Panchayat and that after his death,
one post of clerk fell vacant. On the basis of a proposal by the Board dated 06.12.1996, Rajpal, a
Peon in the establishment, was promoted against Deenanath's post. It is emphasized that Rajpal was
paid all benefits of clerk after promotion and upon his death, his wife was appointed as a Class-IV
employee. It is averred in paragraph No.22 of this rejoinder affidavit that the Government Order
dated 20.04.1987 relates to sanctioned posts in Town Area Khutar, District Shahjahanpur. The said
G.O. does not say anything about the sanctioned posts available with the Nagar Panchayat Khutar.
The Government Order dated 20.04.1987 relied upon by the respondents in order to determine the
sanctioned strength of clerks with the Nagar Panchayat is misplaced; misplaced because it relates to
the former Town Area and not the successor Nagar Panchayat.

16. In the rejoinder affidavit filed in reply to the counter affidavit dated 14.12.2024 filed on
behalf of the Nagar Panchayat by their Executive Officer, the same stand is taken, whereby two
posts of Clerk in the Nagar Panchayat establishment are mooted. It is pointed out that Rajpal was
promoted in the vacancy caused by Deenanath's death in harness. After promotion, Rajpal was
given all benefits attached to a clerk's post and his wife received leave encashment calculated on
that basis. She was also granted compassionate appointment. Upon Rajpal's death, the post of Clerk
fell vacant in the Nagar Panchayat establishment. The affairs of the Nagar Panchayat for the
financial year 2016-17 reported to the Department of Urban Development by the then Executive
Officer have been emphasized to show that the posts of clerks are not one, but two. The return,
which has been submitted in Form-I, shows that in Class-III or Group-C, two posts are sanctioned,
against which, one incumbent was working.

17. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the
petitioner is still receiving the salary of a Class-IV employee (Safai Karamchari), even after his
promotion to a Class-III post vide order dated 01.05.2018. He has represented to the President and
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Executive Officer for grant of his due remuneration attached to the promotion post, but to no
avail. It is next argued that the order of promotion passed in favour of the petitioner is still
subsisting and the petitioner is working as a Clerk in the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat. The
promotion order dated 01.05.2018 has never been cancelled by the President of the Nagar
Panchayat. It is particularly urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the
petitioner's service book shows that no cancellation of promotion has been recorded there, though
the promotion order dated 01.05.2018 is eloquently mentioned.

18. Learned Counsel next submits that there were always two clerks working in the
establishment of the Nagar Panchayat, a fact evident from details of affairs of the Nagar Panchayat
for the year 2016-17 submitted to the Department of Urban Development. About the Government
Order dated 20.04.1987 relied upon by the respondents, it is said by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the Government Order of 1987 relates to sanctioned post for Town Area Khutar, but
not the upgraded Nagar Panchayat.

19. The Director, Local Bodies, in his affidavit, does not say anything about the applicability
of the Government Order dated 20.04.1987 to the Nagar Panchayat. On the other hand, it is pointed
out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that details of affairs of the Nagar Panchayat for the
year 2015-16 published by the Department of Urban Development confirmed that there are two
posts of Clerk in the Nagar Panchayat. Out of these, one is occupied and the other, vacant. In this
connection, our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to Annexure
No.5, page No.51 of the affidavit dated 18.12.2024 filed on behalf of the petitioner.

20. It is also urged that the clerk, who is said to be functional on one of the two posts and
claimed to be validly appointed as such in the Nagar Panchayat establishment, was actually a dailywager, who was illegally appointed as a Clerk by the Nagar Panchayat in their establishment on
temporary basis, without any regularization. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has drawn the Court's attention to Anil Singh's appointment letter, annexed as Annexure No. RA-4
to the rejoinder affidavit dated 10.01.2025, filed by the petitioner, in reply to the counter affidavit
filed by the Director, Local Bodies.

21. Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned Counsel for the Nagar Panchayat, on the other hand,
sticks to the Nagar Panchayat's stand that there is no other post of a Clerk in their establishment
sanctioned by the Government except one, and for the purpose, places reliance on the Government
Order dated 20.04.1987, sanctioning a solitary post in the clerical cadre for the then Town Area
Khutar, District Shahjahanpur. He has drawn our attention to Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter
affidavit dated 05.01.2025. He has submitted that the President of the Nagar Panchayat was
directed by the Director, Local Bodies, to promote Class-III employees in accordance with rules,
but that does not mean that against a non-existing vacancy, promotion could be granted to the
petitioner. He says that after the resolution had been passed by the Board to grant promotion to the
petitioner on 27.03.2018, the DPC was a mere formality at the hands of the then President to ignore
the claims of seniors in the Class-IV cadre.

22. It is emphasized that the petitioner, after his promotion, under orders of the then President,
did not claim emoluments attached to the post from the month of May, 2018 till 30.09. 2022, which
2 All. Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1473
is the first time that he moved the Nagar Panchayat Authorities, claiming higher emoluments. It is
urged that the said fact makes it clear that non-raising of grievance by the petitioner was the result
of his awareness of the fact that he had no case to claim promotion. The petitioner's promotion was
withheld, because Rakesh Kumar Bhargav, another eligible employee, had complained against the
DPC's recommendations on the Integrated Grievance Redressal System, and in reply to queries by
the State Government, the Executive Officer had conceded that there is only one post in the ClassIII cadre, to which the petitioner Rajeev Kumar has not been promoted. The information regarding
the vacancy position in Class-III submitted in Form-I for the financial year 2016-17 is submitted by
the learned Counsel for the Nagar Panchayat to be based on the information submitted by the then
Executive Officer for the year 2015-16. The said information is incorrect. It is for this reason that in
the subsequent years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, the cadre position has been rectified and a
solitary post of Class-III shown in the establishment of the Nagar Panchayat. It is asserted that the
solitary post of Class-III is the one against which Anil Kumar Singh is functioning.

23. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, what we find is that irrespective of the
question whether the sanctioned post in the Class-III cadre are one in number or two, it is difficult
to accept the petitioner's contention that his promotion could be considered against a promotion
quota of 20%, where the number of posts at best is only two. The quota of 20% would work out to
a figure of less than 0.5 or half, where the quota would remain largely ineffective unless the
strength of the cadre increases, assuming that some reservation under the promotion quota is
admissible. The record shows that there is statement for two years given by the Nagar Panchayat
and approved by the State Government, where the number of posts in the clerical cadre are shown
as two. This is for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The fact that this was a mistaken mention in
Form-I submitted by the Nagar Panchayat is evident from the fact that for the subsequent financial
years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, the Executive Officer has clearly mentioned one sanctioned
post of Class-III in the Nagar Panchayat establishment.

24. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure No. CA-4 of the counter affidavit dated
05.01.2025 filed by the Executive Officer, where in Form-I, the number of posts sanctioned in
Class-III or Group-C is mentioned one, which is shown as occupied. The said form relates to the
financial year 2020-21. This position of the cadre strength has been repeated in Form-I submitted
by the Nagar Panchayat for the financial year 2021-22. It is, thus, evident that the mention earlier
made in the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17, showing the cadre strength of Class-III as two
posts, is a mistaken reference. It was revised by the Nagar Panchayat in subsequent financial years,
without objection from the State Government or the Director, Local Bodies. Apparently, therefore,
there is a solitary post in the Class-III cadre, against which, Anil Kumar Singh is working. The
challenge to Anil Kumar Singh's appointment to Class-III cannot be examined in this petition,
because neither originally nor through an amendment, the appointment letter in favour of Anil
Kumar Singh, also issued by the President of the Nagar Panchayat, has been challenged. It has been
brought on record along with a rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner on 10.01.2025, and if the
petitioner so desired, he could have challenged the said promotion letter/ order passed in favour of
Anil Kumar Singh. The petitioner has never done that.

25. So far as the petitioner's own promotion to the post of a Clerk is concerned, no doubt, in
the service book relating to the petitioner, a promotion order dated 01.05.2018 finds mention and
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there is no cancellation of that order recorded by any competent authority, but the fact remains that
the entire proceedings for the petitioner's promotion were cancelled by the Executive Officer vide
order dated 16.05.2018 as non est, since no post was available. The order cancelling the petitioner's
promotion proceedings is recorded in the original records as an order dated 16.05.2018 passed by
the Executive Officer, which reads: "Pronnati ki prakriya pad na hone ke karan nirast ki jati hai".

26. True, it is again, that this order dated 16.05.2018 was communicated to the petitioner, as
the records would show, when it was made and apparently, it was made without hearing him, but a
copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-3, along with the detailed office note,
also dated 16.05.2018, on the foot of which, the Executive Officer has passed the order dated
16.05.2018. This order figures as Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter affidavit dated 05.01.2025
filed by the Executive Officer. If the petitioner wanted to challenge this order, he could have
challenged it, but, has not done that. He has applied for a writ of mandamus to pay him salary
according to the apparent tenor of the promotion order passed in his favour.

27. It is true, no doubt, that a writ of mandamus is one of the widest import and can be issued
to undo wrongs in the absence of the formality of challenge. But, where the rights are not clear and
orders stand in way, which have to be quashed, and those orders have not been substantially
questioned, it is difficult to quash such orders and grant relief. It is also noteworthy that the order
dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Executive Officer, read together with the circumstance that the
petitioner was never paid his emoluments attached to a Class-III post, would show that the
petitioner's promotion, that he claims to have been made by the President, was never a concluded
transaction, in terms of which, his rights crystallized. It was inchoate. Therefore, it was undone by
the Executive Officer by a cancellation of proceedings for promotion and not a revocation of the
promotion order. The endorsement of the promotion order in the petitioner's service book, which
carries no endorsement of its revocation, would, therefore, be not of much consequence.

28. There is another and the most substantial feature of the matter, which stares the petitioner
in the face, when he seeks relief based on the promotion order dated 01.05.2018. The fact is that
eversince the petitioner's promotion order was made, though he says that he performed duties
attached to the post of a Clerk, he never claimed emoluments admissible for the promotion post
right from 01.05.2018 until 03.09.2022. He admittedly filed the first of his representations on
03.09.2022, claiming higher emoluments, addressed jointly to the President and the Executive
Officer of the Nagar Panchayat. It is, indeed, surprising and very unnatural for a promotee to
discharge duties on the promotion post and not claim emoluments attached to it for as long a period
as four years and more. Rather, the petitioner continued to receive salary attached to the Class-IV
post and it is not that, that he asserted his rights to higher emoluments based on the promotion
allegedly granted to him during all this while. This is a case where the petitioner did not move at all
and continued to receive his Class-IV salary. This inaction for a period of four years is telltale of
the fact that the petitioner knew all along that he had no claim founded on the promotion order.
Else, he would have swung into action to claim higher emoluments, when he was deprived of his
higher salary or emoluments within a month or two.

29. In the totality of circumstances, we are of clear opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief.
2 All. Rajiv Mishra Vs. Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors.
1475

30. In the result, this writ petition fails and stands dismissed.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Let the original records produced by Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Advocate be returned
forthwith for their onward transmission to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Khutar, District
Shahjahanpur.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1475
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 32433 of 2015

Rajiv Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Legality of the order passed by the Bank-authority rejecting the application for Ex-gratia payment on the
ground of its being filed beyond period of six months as provided under the Circular dated 09.04.2008.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment - Entitlement -
Period of limitation - Under the Circular dated 09.04.2008, the limitation of filing the application
for Ex-gratia payment is six months from the date of death of employee, however application
was filed beyond it - Authority rejected the application on the ground of delay - Validity
challenged - Bank issued a letter dated 23.2.2013 that instead of compassionate appointment,
Ex-gratia payment can be made on submission of the required papers - Lack of knowledge of
Circular - Relevance - Bank failed to show that the internal document regarding limitation
period was communicated to the legal heirs of deceased employee - Effect : (E-1)
Held : The internal circular of Bank are normally not within the knowledge of any person, who is not
connected with the Bank unless the same is published and is widely circulated. It is not the case of the Bank
that petitioner was having knowledge of the circular dated 9.4.2008 at the time of death of employee -
Coupled with the facts that Bank itself by letter dated 23.2.2013 has invited the application from the petitioner
for submitting application for Ex-gratia payment then the date of knowledge of aforesaid circular, at best, can
be taken from the date of letter dated 23.2.2013 - In view of the letter dated 23.2.2013 of the respondentBank and coupled with the fact that internal circular cannot by itself cause a limitation on applying unless the
internal document is communicated to legal heirs of deceased employee, which in the present case, Bank has
not shown, the impugned letter/orders dated 19.9.2013 and 8.11.2013 passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby
set aside. [Para 6, 7 and 8]

List of Acts
Circular dated 09.04.2008.

List of Keywords