# Rajveer Sharma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 806
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-09
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 8632 of 2010
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajveer-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-47142
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Law
-
Pension
-
U.P.
Cooperative Federal Authority (Business)
Regulations,
1976
-
Subordinate
Cooperative Service Rules, 1979 - Rule
4(d), 4(p) - The definition of Rules 4(d)
and 4(p) clearly indicates the intendment
of the legislature. Definition of "Cooperative
Supervisor" in Rule 4(d) is the clear intendment
of
the
legislature
that
the
Co-operative
Supervisor shall be under the employment of
the co-operative institutions; whereas in Rule
4(p), "village-level workers" have been brought
under the employment of the Community
Development Department in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Therefore, wherever the legislature
intended to do so, they have done it expressly.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
post
of
Co-operative
Supervisor
was
completely kept out of the purview of the
Government department. (Para 71)

B. In the Co-operative Regulations there is
no provision for pensionary benefits. The
intention of the legislature is clear that
Cooperative
Supervisors
can
come
to
government service only through the procedure
established by the Rules and Regulations, as
government
servants.
They
are
recruited
according to the procedure provided in (a) and
(b) of Part III of the Rules.

It
has
been
noticed
that
Co-operative
Supervisors were under the control of the Cooperative Federation Authority and in Cooperative Regulations there is no provision for
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
807
pensionary benefits. In the opinion of this Court,
the period served as Co-operative Supervisor is
not liable to be added for reckoning the
pensionary benefit of retired Co-operative
Inspectors, Grade-II. (Para 72, 73, 80)

C. 'Delay defeats equity' - It is now wellsettled that who claims equity must
enforce his claim within a reasonable
time. (Para 78)

It is admitted case of the petitioners that the
petitioners have approached this Court after the
retirement from service claiming benefit of grant
of notional promotion with effect from the date
their juniors have been provided benefit for
reckoning the qualifying service for the grant of
pension. (Para 74)

The claim set up in the writ petitions reflects
that the juniors to the petitioners have been
granted promotion on the post of Co-operative
Supervisor
Grade-II/Assistant
Development
Officer Co-operative. The petitioners were not
vigilant to approach this Court claiming the
benefits
granted
to
their
juniors.
The
petitioners, who have approached this Court
after a long delay, are not entitled to get relief
in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction u/Art.
226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 81)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,651 of 120,141. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39651 for what follows._

806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State to our order dated 18.01.2021 and the
provisions of section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.
Despite there being warning from the Apex
Court in the matter reported in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 Social
Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and
another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of
law and Justice and others (Supra) and in
the matter of Anand Tiwari Vs. State of
U.P. and others passed in Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 17641 of 2020 and Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273 has directed the police authorities to
try the balance between individual liberty
and social order. "

6. The fact that the applicant is
constable and the allegations against him
are all triable by a Judicial Magistrate. It
appears that the prosecution is going on and
the oscillation of deleting of Section 332
I.P.C. and adding Section 332 I.P.C. has
caused lots of problem. The learned
Judicial Magistrate would also see that
Section 89 of Cr.P.C.. namely alternative
redressal mechanism as well as provisions
of Section 320 Cr.P.C.. may also be
invoked looking to the factual data, this
indulgence to the applicant who is a police
constable and the dispute arose due to his
duty is shown. Looking into the factual
scenario which has been canvassed even in
discharge application and it appears that
application that the complainant himself
was at fault who was the superior officer of
the petitioner.

7. This petition is partly allowed. The
petitioner shall not be coercively dealt with
as per the aforesaid observations.
----------

(2021)07ILR A806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.02.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Service Single No. 8632 of 2010
connected with others cases

Rajveer Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
B.K. Singh, Brijesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Pension
-
U.P.
Cooperative Federal Authority (Business)
Regulations,
1976
-
Subordinate
Cooperative Service Rules, 1979 - Rule
4(d), 4(p) - The definition of Rules 4(d)
and 4(p) clearly indicates the intendment
of the legislature. Definition of "Cooperative
Supervisor" in Rule 4(d) is the clear intendment
of
the
legislature
that
the
Co-operative
Supervisor shall be under the employment of
the co-operative institutions; whereas in Rule
4(p), "village-level workers" have been brought
under the employment of the Community
Development Department in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Therefore, wherever the legislature
intended to do so, they have done it expressly.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
post
of
Co-operative
Supervisor
was
completely kept out of the purview of the
Government department. (Para 71)

B. In the Co-operative Regulations there is
no provision for pensionary benefits. The
intention of the legislature is clear that
Cooperative
Supervisors
can
come
to
government service only through the procedure
established by the Rules and Regulations, as
government
servants.
They
are
recruited
according to the procedure provided in (a) and
(b) of Part III of the Rules.

It
has
been
noticed
that
Co-operative
Supervisors were under the control of the Cooperative Federation Authority and in Cooperative Regulations there is no provision for
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
807
pensionary benefits. In the opinion of this Court,
the period served as Co-operative Supervisor is
not liable to be added for reckoning the
pensionary benefit of retired Co-operative
Inspectors, Grade-II. (Para 72, 73, 80)

C. 'Delay defeats equity' - It is now wellsettled that who claims equity must
enforce his claim within a reasonable
time. (Para 78)

It is admitted case of the petitioners that the
petitioners have approached this Court after the
retirement from service claiming benefit of grant
of notional promotion with effect from the date
their juniors have been provided benefit for
reckoning the qualifying service for the grant of
pension. (Para 74)

The claim set up in the writ petitions reflects
that the juniors to the petitioners have been
granted promotion on the post of Co-operative
Supervisor
Grade-II/Assistant
Development
Officer Co-operative. The petitioners were not
vigilant to approach this Court claiming the
benefits
granted
to
their
juniors.
The
petitioners, who have approached this Court
after a long delay, are not entitled to get relief
in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction u/Art.
226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 81)

Writ petitions dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Roshan Singh & ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 7340-7341 (Para 47)

2. Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs St. of J. & K. & anr.
JT 2009 (13) SC 422 (Para 61)

Precedent cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Hari Singh Gupta, decided on
26.10.2009 (Para 40)

2. St. of U.P. Vs Durga Prasad & ors., decided
on 06.12.1990 (Para 40)

3. Raj Singh Yadav Vs St. of U.P., Writ Petition
No. 237 (SB) of 2001 (Para 40)
4. St. Vs Hari Singh Gahlaut (Para 43)

5. St. of U.P. Vs Rajan Singh (Para 44)

6. Bengali Prasad Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition No. 13240 (SS) of 1980 (Para 77)

7. Roshan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition No. 3947 (SS) of 1997 (Para 77)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri
Kuldip Mani Tripathi, learned Additional
Advocate General, assisted by Sri Vinod
Kumar, learned counsel for the respondentState.

2. In the abovementioned writ
petitions in question, as common question
of law has been engaging the attention of
this Court, the writ petitions are being
decided collectively and Writ Petition
No.8632 (SS) of 2010 is being treated to be
leading case.

3. The present writ petition has been
filed before this Court for issuance of a writ
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to grant notional promotion
on the post of Cooperative Supervisor
Grade-II/ Assistant Development Officer
Cooperative with effect from the date
juniors
to
the petitioner
have
been
promoted with all consequential benefits.

4. Facts of Writ Petition No.8632 of
2010 (Rajveer Sharma v. State of U.P. and
others) are that the petitioner was granted
appointment on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor
on
25.3.1977
and
was
confirmed on the said post on 1.1.1988 and
in the gradation list, his name finds place at
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
45/77. It is case of the petitioner that the
persons junior to the petitioner from serial
no.48
onwards
have
been
granted
promotion on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor
Grade-II/
Assistant
Development Officer, Cooperative. The
petitioner was placed in the seniority list at
serial no.57 vide seniority list dated
30.09.2003 and accordingly he was granted
promotion on the post of Assistant
Development
Officer,
Cooperative
on
30.9.2003 and retired from services on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.3.2010.
On
the
basis
of
certain
judgments relied upon, he is claiming
notional promotion on the post of A.D.O.,
Cooperative with effect from the date
juniors have been granted promotion for
the purpose of accounting qualifying
service for the payment of pension. Under
the Rules, it is provided that for the
payment of pension to a government
servant, required qualifying service is 10
years. The petitioner admittedly was
granted promotion on the post of A.D.O.,
Cooperative on 30.9.2003 and retired on
31.3.2010, therefore, he does not have 10
years of qualifying service required under
Regulation 361.

5. Facts of Writ Petition No.6378
(SS) of 2011 (Ram Gopal Verma v. The
State of U.P. and others) are that the
petitioner was absorbed under Managing
Director,
U.P.
Provincial
Cooperative
Union Limited, Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor
whose
date
of
initial
appointment was 13.9.1970 and his service
were made confirmed on the post of
Cooperative
Supervisor
subsequently.
Order was passed by Additional Registrar
(Administration), Cooperative Societies,
U.P., Lucknow granting promotion to
petitioner
to
the
post
of
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative)/
Cooperative
Inspector
Group-II.
In
pursuance thereof, he joined on the
promoted post and was allowed to continue
as such. Judgment and order was passed by
this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4527
(SS) of 2009 for grant of notional
promotion to the similarly situated and
even junior person to the petitioner namely
Sri Shyam Manohal Lal Srivastava to the
post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Offficer
(Cooperative) with effect from the date of
promotion of junior person with the
direction
to
fix
his
pension
w.e.f.
18.04.1990.
Additional
Registrar
(Administration), Cooperative Societies,
U.P., Lucknow issued order complying the
abovementioned judgment 31.7.2009. The
petitioner
made
representation
before
Additional
Registrar
(Administration),
Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow
thereby making request to the effect that
the petitioner may also be granted notional
promotion to the post of Cooperative
Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer
(Cooperative) with effect from 18.04.1990
as it has been given to above named Sri
Shyam Manohar Lal Srivastava keeping in
view the fact that the prsons who were
granted promotion on 18.04.1990 are junior
to the petitioner also and the petitioner was
also superseded in the matter of grant of
promotion
without
any
reason
or
justification but the same could not come
within the know of the petitioner and it was
only in the month of March, 2010 when
order dated 11.03.2010 was passed in
compliance of order dated 31.07.2009
passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.4527 (SS) of 2009, the petitioner has
got knowledge about the promotion granted
to the junior prsons. The petitioner retired
from service on attaining the age of
superannuation
on
31.7.2010
while
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
809
working on the post of Cooperative GroupII/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative) and respondents have fixed
the pension of petitioner w.e.f. 4.3.1995
thereby reckoning the length of petitioner's
services on the post of Cooperative Officer
(Cooperative) as 15 years 4 months and 28
days only. When no order has been passed
on the representation, he filed the present
writ petition.

6. Facts of Writ Petition No.2695 of
2014 (Briddhi Chandra Yadav v. State of
U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor.
He
was
placed
under
suspension in relation to the charge of
alleged
financial
irregularities
and
embezzlement. In this regard, an FIR was
also lodged against him under Sections
409/467/471/477 in which criminal case
no.82/83 was registered against him. The
petitioner was served with a charge-sheet
and in furtherence of the same he was
dismissed from service vide order dated
29.11.1985
against
which
he
filed
departmental appeal but the same was also
rejected vide order dated 30.07.1987 and as
such the petitioner filed Writ Petiton
No.6212 of 1987 before this Court. The
aforesaid writ petition was partly allowed
vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1993
whereby order dated 29.11.1985 dismissing
the petitioner from service as well as order
dated 30.07.1987 rejecting the appeal of
petitioner filed against the dismissal order
were quashed and petitioner was directed to
be deemed continuing in service with
liberty to respondents to hold further
proceedings on the basis of charge sheet in
accordance with law within the stipulated
period as per direction of this Court, but
department filed S.L.P. No.14002/1993
against the judgment and order dated
31.03.1993 before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court which was dismissed.

The petitioner was reinstated in
service in compliance of judgment and
order dated 31.03.1993 and he was treated
to be in continuous service and he was paid
entire arrears of salary excluding the
amount of subsistence allowance already
paid to him. Moreover the respondents did
not proceed further with the departmental
proceeding after reinstatement of petitioner.
Additional
Commissioner/
Additional
Registrar (Administration). Cooperative,
U.P.,
Lucknow
issued
order
dated
22.5.1995 thereby granting promotion to
the
post
of
Cooperative
Officer
(Cooperative) to 101 persons including the
persons juniors to the petitioner on
temporary and ad hoc basis but the
petitioner was not granted promotion and
as such petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.397 (SS) of 1998 which was disposed
of vide judgment and order dated 6.2.1998
giving liberty to petitioner to make a
representation to the authority concerned
with a direction to the concerned authority
to decide the said representation within a
period of three months in accordance with
law by a speaking order.

In pursuance to the said order, the
petitioner
made
representation
to
Additional
Commissioner/
Additional
Registrar (Administration). Cooperative,
U.P., Lucknow. Additional Commissioner/
Additional
Registrar
(Administration).
Cooperative, U.P., Lucknow issued order
on
20.7.1999
granting
promotion
to
petitioner to the post in question on ad hoc
basis thereby directing the petitioner to
submit his joining report within a period of
one month and also issued another letter
no.1434 dated 20.07.1999 on the same day
disposing of petitioner's representation. The
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner submitted his joining report on
30.7.1999 in pursuance of said promotion
order dated 20.7.1999 and since then, he
was allowed to work on the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative).
Additional
Commissioner/
Additional
Registrar (Administration). Cooperative,
U.P.,
Lucknow
issued
an
order
on
30.9.2003 regularizing the promotion of
petitioner as well as junior persons.

The petitioner on attaining the
age of superannuation retired from service
on 31.01.2012 while working on the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative).
Additional
Commissioner/
Additional
Registrar (Administration). Cooperative,
U.P.,
Lucknow
issued
an
order
on
21.1.2013 thereby allotting the year of
vacancies to the concerned Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) who were granted
promotion on previous occasions from the
year 1989 to 2001 and the regularization
order dated 30.09.2003 was deemed to be
amended accordingly but by means of the
order dated 21.01.2013 the petitioner has
been regularized against the vacancy of the
year 1997-98 whereas the junior persons
have been regularized against the vacancies
of previous years i.e. 1992-93 onward.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
made
representation
to
Additional
Commissioner/
Additional
Registrar
(Administration).
Cooperative,
U.P.,
Lucknow for issuing order of notional
promotion on the post in question against
the vacancy of the year 1992-93 w.e.f.
1.7.1992
for
being
granted
regular
promotion against the vacancy of the year
1992-93 since when a person junior to him
has been firstly regularized keeping in view
the criteria for promotion to the post in
question i.e. seniority subject to rejection of
unfit under the relevant Service Rules,
1979 and as such the petitioner is entitled
to be promoted on the post in question prior
to a date of promotion of a person junior to
him and in continuation of the same the
petitioner has vehementaly represented his
case through various representations. When
no order has been passed on it, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. Facts of Writ Petition No.3037
(SS) of 2011 (Naresh Chandra Sharma v.
The State of U.P. and others) are that the
petitioner was initially appointed on the
post of Cooperative Supervisor on 8.1.1958
and his services were confirmed on
30.4.1972.
The
Additional
Registrar
(Administration), Cooperative Societies,
U.P., Lucknow issued order on 9.5.1985
whereby petitioner was granted promotion
to the post of Cooperative Inspector GroupII/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative). On 27.5.1985, the petitioner
submitted his joining report on the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II and he was
allowed to work on the promoted post. He
retired while working on the post of
Cooperative
Inspector
Group-II
after
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.5.1994. However, the petitioner has not
been paid pensionary benefits under
Government Order dated 1.7.1989 on the
ground that the length of petitioner's
service on the said post is only 9 years and
4 months which is below ten years.

This Court vide order dated
3.5.1995 was pleased to pass judgment and
order in Writ Petition No.13240 of 1989
directing respondents to treat the writ
petitioners who are similarly situated persons
than the present petitioner as having been
notional promoted on the post of Cooperative
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
811
Inspector Group-II from the date of promotion
of junior person i.e. 7.4.1978 for the purposes of
pensionary benefits keeping in view the fact
that vide orders dated7.4.1978 and 22.7.1978
promotion was granted to several Cooperative
Supervisors to the post of Cooperative Inspector
Group-II thereby superseding the Senior
Cooperative Supervisors depriving them from
promotion though they were eligible for grant
of promotion on the date of issuance of
promotion orders. Respondent no.3 issued an
order on 21.5.1996 in compliance of the
abovementioned judgment and order dated
3.5.1995 whereby persons namely Bengali
Prasad Sharma and others were granted
pensionary
benefits
by
giving
notional
promotion when juniors were promoted.

The judgment and order was passed
by this Court in Writ Petition on 4419 (SS) of
1996 filed by other similar situated retired
Cooperative Inspectors Group-II whereby a
writ of mandamus was also issued to
respondents to give notional promotion with
effect from 7.4.1978 when juniors were
promoted and the respondents were directed to
fix their pension w.e.f. 7.4.1978 with the
condition that the writ petitioners will not be
entitled for any arrears of salary. Respondent
no.3 issued order on 11.11.1999 in compliance
of the abovementioned judgment and order
dated 11.5.1999 and granted benefit of notional
promotion to petitioners of Writ Petition
No.4419 (SS) of 1996 to the post of
Cooperative Inspector Grade-II w.e.f. 7.4.1978
and accordingly they were granted pensionary
benefits. The State Government has also issued
a Government Order giving directions for
considering the claim of similarly situated
persons.

Another Government Order was
issued on 14.2.2002 in super-session of the
above mentioned Government Order dated
8.6.2000 for consideration of the similar
cases on merit and the benefit of
judgment and order dated 3.5.1995 passed in
W.P. No.13240 of 1990 and order dated
11.5.1999 passed in W.P. No.4419 (SS) of
1996 has been made available to several
retired
Cooperative
Inspectors
thereby
granting notional promotion for the purposes
of pensionary benefits with effect from the
date of promotion of person junior to them
w.e.f. 7.4.1978.

 This Court vide order dated
27.4.2007 was pleased to pass judgment and
order for making available the benefit of
judgment and orders dated 3.5.1995 passed in
W.P. No.13240 of 1995 and order dated
11.5.1999 passed in W.P. No.4419 (SS) of
1996 to another similarly situated retired
Cooperative Inspector namely Sri Somesh
Chandra Pandey in W.P. No.1771(SS) of
1996 thereby granting benefits w.e.f. the date
of promotion of person junior i.e. 7.4.1978.
This Court vide another order dated
9.10.2009, was pleased to pass another
judgment and order in W.P. No.275 (SB) of
2007 namely Siddhi Nath Shukla v. State of
U.P. and others for giving benefit of notional
promotion with effect from the date of junior
person for the purposes of pensionary
benefits to a retired similarly situated
Cooperative Inspector Group-II. Respondent
no.3 passed an order on 25.1.2010 in
compliance of the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 9.10.2009 granting similar
benefits to above-named Sri Siddhi Nath
Shukla. The petitioner being similarly
situated person made representation before
respondent no.3 for giving benefit of the
aforesaid judgments and orders. When no
order has been passed, the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition.

8. Facts of Writ Petition No.2923
(SS) of 2015 (Amar Singh v. State of U.P.
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others) are that the petitioner joined on
the post of Cooperative Supervisor on
1.3.1978. He was granted promotion to the
post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative) on 1.10.1993 initially for the
period of 89 days. The term was extended
from time to time and petitioner was
allowed to continue upto 31.3.1998 with on
day artificial break i.e. 3.1.1994.

 On 1.4.1998 the petitioner was
reverted to the post of Co-operative
Supervisor due to the reason of nonextension of his term of promotion.
Respondent no.3 issued an order on
16.11.2012 granting promotion to the
petitioner to the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) in pursuance of
which he joined on 17.11.2012 and was
allowed to continue.

The
petitioner
made
representation on 20.11.2012 to respondent
no.3 claiming notional promotion to the
post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative) w.e.f. 1.3.1989 i.e. the date
since when a person junior to the petitioner
was granted promotion which was not
decided. The petitioner on attaining the age
of superannuation retired from service on
31.12.2012 while working on the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development Officer (Cooperative), but he
has not been granted pensionary benefits
till the date. In this regard, he made another
representation dated 3.2.2015 which is still
pending consideration. When no order has
been passed, he has filed the present writ
petition.

9. Facts of Writ Petition No.1780 (SS)
of 2015 (Purshottam Sharma v. State of U.P.
and others) are that the petitioner joined
service on the post of Cooperative Supervisor
on 22.2.1978. He was granted promotion to
the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/
Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative)
on 28.12.1988 initially for a period of 90
days. The term was extended from time to
time and he was allowed to continue upto
19.08.1988 with one day artificial break
created after every interval of one year, three
months or 80 days as the case may be
depending upon the term of promotion
indicated in each promotion orders. The
petitioner was reverted to the post of
Cooperative Supervisor on 20.8.1998.

Feeling aggrieved, he filed Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.31478 of 1998 in
which although the respondents were directed
to file counter afffidavit, yet no interim order
was granted in favour of the petitioner and
the petitioner worked on the post of
Cooperative Supervisor w.e.f. 20.8.1998.
Respondent no.3 issued an order 16.11.2012
granting promotion to petitioner to the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development Officer (Cooperative)during
the pendency of the writ petition and in
pursuance
thereof,
he
joined
w.e.f.
18.11.2012 and was allowed to continue. The
petitioner made representation on 19.11.2002
to respondent no.3 claiming for notional
promotion.
Civil
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.31478 of 1998 was dismissed as
infructuous vide judgment and order dated
7.4.20014. The petitioner on attaining the age
of superannuation retired from service while
working on the post Cooperative Inspector
Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer
(Cooperative) on 30.6.2014, but he has not
been granted pensionary benefits till date.

 In this regard, the petitioner
made representation before respondent no.3
on 19.8.2014 but till date no order
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
813
whatsoever has been filed. When no order
has been passed, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.

10. Facts of Writ Petition No.1242
(SS) of 2012 (Shiv Shankar Singh v. State
of U.P. and others) are that the petitioner
was absorbed on 1.1.1977 under respondent
no.6 on the post of Cooperative Supervisor
whose date of initial appointment was
20.04.1971 and his services were made
confirmed on the said post subsequently.
Respondent no.4 passed an order on
3.7.1993
granting
promotion
to
the
petitioner on the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) for a period of 89
days in pursuance of which he joined the
said post. Respondent no.4 passed another
order on 30.9.1993 granting promotion to
the petitioner for next 89 days. The term
was
further
extended
for
89
days.
Thereafter, he was converted to the post of
Cooperative Supervisor.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
filed writ petition which was number as
Writ Petition No.1604 (SS) of1994 wherein
this Court vide order dated 7.4.1994 was
pleased to pass an interim order for
allowing the petitioner to continue on the
post in question. In pursuance thereof, he
was allowed to continue. Thereafter,
respondent no.3 passed an order on
15.2.1995 granting promotion to 149
persons including the petitioner to the post
of
Cooperative
Inspector
Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative)for a period of one year. In
pursuance thereof, he joined on 1.3.1995.
Vide order dated 30.9.2003, the services of
the
petitioner
were
regularized.
The
petitioner retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation while working
on the post of Cooperative Inspector
Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer
(Cooperative) on 30.6.2007 and opposite
parties fixed the pension of the petitioner
w.e.f. 17.7.1993 thereby reckoning the
length of petitioner's services on the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development Officer (Cooperative) are 13
years 11 months and 14 days only.

Thereafter,
this
Court
vide
judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 passed
in Writ Petition No.4527(SS) of 2009 for
the grant of notional promotion to the
similarly situated and even junior persons
to the petitioner namely Sri Shyam
Manohar Lal Srivastava to the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development Officer (Cooperative) with
effect from the date of promotion of junior
person with the direction to fix his pension
w.e.f. 18.4.1990. In pursuance thereof,
respondent no.3 issued an order on
11.3.2010 complying the judgment and
order dated 31.7.2009. Thereafter, the
petitioner made representation on 6.4.2010
claiming benefits of aforesaid judgment
and order dated 31.7.2009. When no order
has been passed, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.

11. Facts of Writ Petition No.1490
(SS) of 2012 (Ram Sundar Lal Maurya v.
State of U.P. and others) are that the
petitioner
was
initially
appointed
as
Cooperative Supervisor on 20.6.1978 and
his
services
were
made
confirmed
subsequently. The petitioner was granted
selection
grade
on
20.06.1988
on
completion of ten years service and after
completion of 14 years service he was
granted first promotional pay-scale and
thereafter, on completion of 24 years
service of petitioner was granted second
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
promotional pay-scale. He was granted
promotion on to the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) vide order dated
17.5.2010. On 25.5.2010, the order dated
17.5.2010 was amended to the extent
changing the place of posting after
promotion from Faizabad to Sultanpur. The
petitioner was allowed to work on the post
of
Cooperative
Inspector
Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative)on 7.6.2010.

Thereafter,
respondent
no.3
issued an order on 9.8.2010 granting
pensionary benefits to a similarly situated
person namely Sadho Ram Gangwar by
way of grant of notional promotion to him
to the post of Cooperative Inspector GroupII/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative) with effect from the date of
promotion of junior persons i.e. 18.4.1990
in compliance of judgment and order dated
15.3.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.1409(SS) of 2010. Thereafter, several
persons junior to the petitioner were
granted notional promotion. The petitioner
made representation on 31.8.2010 claiming
notional promotion. The petitioner on
attaining the age of superannuation retired
while working on the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) on 30.6.2011.

 Thereafter, the petitioner made
another representation on 20.7.2011 before
respondent no.3 for extension of benefit of
judgment and order dated 15.3.2010 and
when no order has been passed, the present
writ petition has been filed.

12. Facts of Writ Petition No.4311
(SS) of 2014 (Jai Prakash Vimal v. State of
U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor
on
24.6.1978,
joined
the
services and his services were confirmed
subsequently. Juniors/ similarly situated
persons to petitioner were promoted on the
next promotion post i.e. Cooperative
Inspector Group-II. After that, petitioner
made several application; and personal
contact to respondents but they are sitting
tight over the matter. The petitioner was
promoted on the next higher post i.e.
Cooperative Inspector Group-II after expiry
of 20 years of promotion of junior persons.
The petitioner was retired on attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.5.2014. He
will not get the pension due to not
completion of service at lest 10 years on
government post while juniors to the
petitioner are getting. In an identical case
this Court passed a judgment and order
dated
10.7.20014
in
Writ
Petition
No.6359(SS) of 2010 (SB Sharma v. State
of U.P. and others) granted promotion
w.e.f. 18.4.1990. When no action has been
taken, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.

13. Facts of Writ Petition No.3198
(SS) of 2014 are that the petitioner was
initially
appointed
on
the
post
of
Cooperative
Supervisor
in
Central
Cooperative Bank, Biswan, District Sitapur
on 12.5.1973. The services of the petitioner
were absorbed under respondent no.6 and
he belonged to Group of Vikalp Patra-B
Cooperative Supervisors. Respondent no.3
issued
an
order
15.2.1995
granting
promotion to the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) on temporary and ad
hoc basis in pursuance of which he joined
on 2.3.1995 and was posted at District
Lakhimpur Kheri. The U.P. Public Service
Commission
Allahabad
gave
recommendation
for
regularization
of
promotion of petitioner as well as other
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
815
persons in pursuance of which respondent
no.3 issued an order dated 30.9.2013
regularizing ad hoc promotions of 305
persons including the petitioner on the post
of
Cooperative
Inspector
Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative). Thereafter, respondent no.3
also
issued
an
order
on
2.1.2008
confirming
services
of
131
persons
including the petitioner on the post of
Cooperative Inspector Group-II/ Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative)
wherein
service
of
petitioner
were
confirmed w.e.f. 1.10.2005. The petitioner
on attaining the age of superannuation
retired from service while working on the
post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative) on 31.12.2011. Respondent
no.4 sent pension papers of petitioner to
respondent no.5 for release of government
pension and gratuity to petitioner. The
office of respondent no.5 raised objection
to the effect that petitioner was not entitled
for grant of pension on the ground that 10
years' qualifying sergice for pension in case
of the petitioner, if continued from the date
of his regularization i.e. 30.9.2003 was not
complete and as such the petitioner filed
Writ Petition No.1050 (SS) of 2013.

Respondent no.3 issued another
order on 21.1.2013 allotting the year of
vacancies to the concerned Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer
(Cooperative)
including
the
petitioner who were granted promotions
during the year 1989 to 2001 whereby the
petitioner has been regularized against the
vacancy of the year 1995-96 and on that
basis objections ere removed and vide letter
dated 8.3.2013 papers in respect of the
finalization of pension of the petitioner
were forwarded to the respondent no.5 and
in pursuance of the same petitioner's
pension has been fixed w.e.f. 2.3.1995
whereas promotion of several junior
persons were regularized against the
vacancies of previous years on the one
hand as mentioned above and on the other
pension of several junior persons were
fixed w.e.f. 18.4.1990 as a result of grant of
notional promotion to the post in question
for the purpose of pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 18.04.1990 to them. The petitioner
made representation to respondent no.3
claiming notional promotion and when no
order has been passed, he filed the present
writ petition.

14. Facts of Writ Petition No.6550
(SS) of 2014 (Sheodan Singh v. State of
U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was
initially
appointed
on
the
post
of
Cooperative Supervisor on 23.4.1978. The
meeting
of
department
promotion
committee
was
held
on
31.1.1994.
Respondent no.3 issued an order granting
promotion to the person junior to the
petitioner as the petitioner was superseded
in the matter of promotion due to the
pendency of the disciplinary proceeding as
well as proceedings of Surchage. The
petitioner was absolved from all the
charges levelled in the said disciplinary
proceedings as well as proceeding of
surcharge by means of order dated
18.11.1996.

The meeting of DPC was held on
15.7.199 in which petitioner's case for
promotion was considered. On 3.12.1999,
respondent no.3 passed an order granting
promotion to the petitioner with effect from
the date of joining and he was directed to
submit his joining report with a period of
one month failing which the promotion
granted to him was to be cancelled
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
automatically. He submitted his joining
report on 21.12.1999 and was allowed to
work on the post of Cooperative Inspector
Group-II/ Assistant Development Officer
(Cooperative). The meeting of DPC was
held on 29.7.2003 in which the case of
petitioner's promotion was reconsidered. on
22.8.2003, respondent no.3 passed an order
granting notional promotion to petitioner
with effect from the date of promotion of
junior persons i.e. 10.5.1994 and the
petitioner was granted benefits of annual
increments but he was not granted any
arrears of difference of salary on the one
hand asnd on the other he was also not
granted the benefits of selection grade
payable to him on the completion of 8
years'
service
i.e.
10.5.2002
and
promotional pay-scale payable to him on
the completion of 14 years' service i.e.
10.5.2008 at the time of fixation of his
salary and as such the petitioner made
representation.

Respondent no.3 sent a letter to
respondent no.1 on 11.11.2008 making
recommendation in favour of petitioner for
granting the said benefits, however, the
matter of petitioner remained pending for
final disposal. The petitioner was granted
further promotion to the Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) on 11.2.2010 and
while working on the said post, he retired
on attaining the age of superannuation. On
23.2.2012, respondent no.4 issued an order
refusing to grant benefits of time scales to
petitioner. Respondent no.3 also issued an
order on 30.7.2012 issuing directing to
counting the period of service of petitioner
from the date of notional promotion i.e.
10.5.1994 for the purpose of grant of
pensionary benefits only. The petitioner
made another representation to respondents
for considering the case in the light of the
judgment and orders dated 29.7.2008 and
23.7.2009 and order dated 11.2.2010 on
which respondent no.3 issued an order
dated 21.1.2013 refusing to grant the
benefits of time scales to petitioner. On
6.2.2013, respondent no.4 issued an order
communicating copy of the order dated
21.1.2013 to petitioner. Respondent no.1
also issued order dated 21.1.2013 refusing
to grant the same. Respondent no.4 also
issued order dated 2.6.2014 refusing to
grant the benefits of time scale. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.

15. Facts of the Writ Petition No.670
(SS) of 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Shukla v.
State of U.P. and others) are that the
petitioner was appointed on 17.3.1992 on
the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-II/
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Cooperative). The D.P.C. was held on
15.1.2007 for considering promotion of
employees. The first adverse entry has been
incorporated in character roll of the
petitioner in the year 2000-01 against
which petitioner moved representation on
4.6.2000 before appropriate authority. The
second adverse entry has been given to
petitioner in the year 2003-04, but the said
adverse entry was not communicated to the
petitioner. The third adverse entry has been
given in the year 2004-05 which was
communicated to the petitioner after lapse
of three months. D.P.C. rejected the
consideration of petitioner's promotion on
1.2.2007. On 2.3.2007, the petitioner
moved a representation stating therein that
one Naveen Kumar Srivastava who is
junior to petitioner has been promoted and
therefore
the
petitioner
be
granted
promotion. When no order was passed, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2870 (SS)
of 2007 which was disposed of vide order
dated 18.5.2007 with a direction to
7 All. Rajveer Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
817
competent
authority
to
decide
representation of the petitioner within a
period of four weeks and in pursuance
thereof,
Additional
Registration
(Administration) decided the representation
and rejected candidature of petitioner for
consideration of promotion by D.P.C.
Against his rejection for promotion, he
made severals representations through
proper channel as well as through U.P.C.
recent of which is dated 17.10.2006. In the
DPC held on July 2007, the name of
petitioner was sent for consideration for
promotion and no consideration has been
made in third meeting, forth meeting and
fifth meeting of DPC, the petitioner filed
the present writ petition.

16. Facts of the Writ Petition No.1613
(SS) of 2008 (Veg Raj Singh v. State of
U.P. and others) are that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Cooperative
Supervisor on 1.1.1958. The petitioner has
been promoted to the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II/ Assistant Development
Officer (Cooperative) on 19.10.1978and on
10.11.1978 he joined the said post. The
petitioner was sent on deputation on
1.4.1979 and 31.1.1980. An adverse entry
has been awarded against the petitioner in
the
year
1979-1980.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner has been punished vide order
dated
21.3.1986.
Vide
orders
dated
15.10.1988, 16.1.1989 and 27.4.1992, Mr.
Satya Vir Singh, Mr. Hari Nath Singh
Kushwaha and others juniors to the
petitioners have been promoted on the post
of Cooperative Inspector Group-I. The
petitioner made representation claiming
promotion which has been rejected. Vide
order dated 30.9.2003, the petitioner has
been regularized on the post of Cooperative
Inspector Group-II. Against punishment,
the petitioner filed appeal which was
rejected.