# Ram Het Tewari v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 225
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-02-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20264 of 2004
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-het-tewari-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40429
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226 readwith
U.P.
Regularization
of
Ad
hoc
appointments (on the post, outside the
period of the Public Service Commission)
Rules
1979
rule-4
Regularisationworking on officiating basis on the Post
of Lekhpal w.e.f. 20.2.87-termination
order dated 9.11.89 stayed-lastly by
judgment
dated
5.12.03.
Petition
disposed of with direction to consider
the representation for Regularisationother employees working on officiating
basis regularized despite of Specific
averments-not Responds can not take
contrary stand -held-Petitioner entitled
for regularization.

Held: Para 10

The learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited my attention to Annexures11 and 12 to the writ petition where, in
similar situation, another employee was
appointed on an officiating basis and
thereafter,
the
respondents
had
regularized his services. This fact has not
been controverted by the respondents.
Consequently, in my view, it is not open
to the respondents to take a contrary
stand. A uniform policy has to be
adopted and it is not open to the
respondents to pick and choose at their
own convenience.
Case law discussed:
1985 (2) SCC-451

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
 Ram Het Tewari V. State of U.P. and others
225
 IPC pending in the court of Judicial
Magistrate-III, Saharanpur are quashed.
Application allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20264 of 2004

Ram Het Tewari

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226 readwith
U.P.
Regularization
of
Ad
hoc
appointments (on the post, outside the
period of the Public Service Commission)
Rules
1979
rule-4
Regularisationworking on officiating basis on the Post
of Lekhpal w.e.f. 20.2.87-termination
order dated 9.11.89 stayed-lastly by
judgment
dated
5.12.03.
Petition
disposed of with direction to consider
the representation for Regularisationother employees working on officiating
basis regularized despite of Specific
averments-not Responds can not take
contrary stand -held-Petitioner entitled
for regularization.

Held: Para 10

The learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited my attention to Annexures11 and 12 to the writ petition where, in
similar situation, another employee was
appointed on an officiating basis and
thereafter,
the
respondents
had
regularized his services. This fact has not
been controverted by the respondents.
Consequently, in my view, it is not open
to the respondents to take a contrary
stand. A uniform policy has to be
adopted and it is not open to the
respondents to pick and choose at their
own convenience.
Case law discussed:
1985 (2) SCC-451

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed on
20.2.1987 to officiate on the post of
Consolidation Lekhpal. Subsequently, the
post on which the petitioner was working
became
substantive
in
nature
on
19.10.1989. The services of the petitioner
was
dispensed
by
an
order
dated
9.11.1989.
The
petitioner
made
a
representation on 11.12.1989, which was
rejected and consequently, the petitioner
filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 288 of
1990 in which an interim order was
granted permitting the petitioner to
continue to function on the post of
Consolidation Lekhpal. This writ petition
was disposed of by judgment dated
5.12.2003 directing that the petitioner's
case for regularization be considered
under the relevant regularization Rules
and till such time, as the petitioner's case
for regularization remained pending, he
was allowed to continue in service. Based
on this direction given by this court, the
respondents by the impugned order dated
15.5.2004 has rejected the claim of the
regularization
of the
petitioner and
consequently by the same order his
services was also dispensed with.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 226

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
has now filed the present writ petition
praying for the quashing of the order
dated 15.5.2004 passed by respondent no.
3,
namely,
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation, Mirzapur and has also
prayed
for
a
writ
of
mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider
his case for regularization on the post of
Consolidation Lekhpal.

4. The sole ground for rejecting the
claim of the petitioner is that the
petitioner was appointed on an officiating
basis and therefore, the Rules, namely
The U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc
Appointments (on Posts Outside the
Purview
of
the
Public
Service
Commission) Rules 1979 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules of 1979) are not
applicable to a case of an officiating
employee, inasmuch as, the Rules of
1979, as amended from time to time only
applies to an ad-hoc appointee.

5. In order to appreciate the
submissions made at the Bar, Rule 4 of
the rules of 1979 is quoted hereunder:

"4.
Regularisation
of
ad
hoc
appointments- (1) Any person who-
(i) was directly appointed on ad hoc
basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is
continuing in service as such on the date
of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments
(On Posts Outside the Purview of the
Public
Service
Commission)
(Third
Amendment) Rules, 2001.

(ii) Possessed
requisite
qualifications
prescribed for regular appointment as the
time of such ad hoc appointment, and

(iii) has completed or, as the case may be,
after he has completed three years service
shall
be
considered
for
regular
appointments in permanent or temporary
vacancy, as may be available, on the basis
of his record and suitability before any
regular appointment is made in such
vacancy in accordance with the relevant
rules of orders."

6. The aforesaid Rules indicate that
any person who was appointed 'on an
adhoc basis' on or before 30.6.1998, who
possessed the requisite qualification for
regular
appointment
and
who
had
completed three years of continuous
service, would be considered for a regular
appointment in a permanent or temporary
vacancy, as may be available. In the
present case, there is no dispute with
regard to the fact that the petitioner was
working on a substantive vacancy, as is
clear from the order of appointment itself.
The only question, which arises for
consideration is whether the petitioner
being appointed on an officiating basis
could be included in the definition of the
word 'ad hoc'. The legal glossary defines
the word 'officiating' as under-

'Acting in an official capacity, filling
a position temporarily'

and the word "Ad hoc" has been
defined as "made, established, acting or
concerned with a particular end or
purpose."

7. Therefore, an ad hoc appointment
is for a particular purpose or for a limited
purpose. The word 'officiating' also
means to fill up a position temporarily,
which means to fill a post for a limited
period.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
 Jagmohan Malhotra V. Jai Kumar Mishra and others
227

8. Normally, when a person
officiates on a post, he does only for a
limited period in addition to the post
which he holds, that is to say, that an
incumbent retains his original post and in
addition to it he officiates on another post.
In the present case, the petitioner has been
appointed afresh for the first time on the
post of Consolidation Lekhpal. The
petitioner was not officiating on this post
in addition to another post. Therefore, the
usage of the word-'Sthanpann' should be
read as if it was made for a limited period
on an ad hoc basis.

9. In Arun Kumar Chatterjee v.
South Eastern Railway and others (1985)
2 SCC-451, The Supreme Court explained
the meaning of the word 'Officiating' as
generally used in service parlance.

"According
to
its
ordinary
connotation, the word 'officiating' is
generally used when a servant having held
one post permanently or substantively, is
appointed to a post in a higher rank, but
not permanently or substantively, while
still retaining his lien on his substantive
post i.e. officiating in the post till his
confirmation.
Such
officiating
appointment may be made when there is a
temporary vacancy in a higher post due to
the death or retirement of the incumbent
or otherwise. In contrast, the word
'temporary' usually denotes a person
appointed in the civil service for the first
time
and
the
appointment
is
not
permanent but temporary i.e. for the time
being, with no right to the post."

10. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has invited my attention to
Annexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition
where, in similar situation, another
employee was appointed on an officiating
basis and thereafter, the respondents had
regularized his services. This fact has not
been controverted by the respondents.
Consequently, in my view, it is not open
to the respondents to take a contrary
stand. A uniform policy has to be adopted
and it is not open to the respondents to
pick and choose at their own convenience.

11. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the writ petition is allowed
and impugned order dated 15.5.2004 is
quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the
claim of regularisation. Consequently, a
mandamus
is
issued
directing
the
respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner
on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal by
issuing consequential orders for the
regularisation of his service within six
weeks from the date a certified copy of
this judgment is produced before him. It is
made clear that if the petitioner was not
found to be working between the period
15.5.2004 till the date of the order of the
regularisation, he shall not be paid the
salary/wages, for that period but the said
period would be included for calculating
the
length
of
service
and
other
consequential benefits of service that may
be available to the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Revision No. 2 of 2005

Jagmohan Malhortra

 ...Defendant/Revisionist
Versus
Jai Kumar Mishra and others

 ...Opposite Parties