# Ram Ugrah v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 684
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ugrah-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39958
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
law-Absorption-
appellants
earlier worked as Collection peon w.e.f.
1.2.67 to 1.8.75- after retrenchment
again-
applied
for
absorption
on
12.12.86
while
G.O.
dated
28.5.81
providing relaxation of upper age limit
for 10 years was already in operation-
entitled for absorption- direction issued
for consideration within 3 months.

Held- para 12

Vide Government order dated 21.7.84,
the benefits provided in the Government
order dated 23.5.81 was extended till
22.5.87. From a perusal of paragraph 2
kha of the Government order dated
6.7.77
it
is
clear
that
the
State
Government had relaxed the upper age
limit in the case of absorption of
employees retrenched from Class III and
IV posts to the extent the services
rendered prior to retrenchment and for
the period after retrenchment. However,
under
the
Government
order
dated
23.5.81 the relaxation of upper age limit,
as provided in the earlier Government
order dated 6.7.1977, was continued
subject to the maximum relaxation of
age of ten years only. It is not in dispute
that
when
the
appellants-
writ
petitioners made an application for
absorption
on
12.12.86
there
was
relaxation in Upper age limit for a
maximum period of ten years, and
therefore,
they
were
liable
to
be
considered for absorption by giving age
relaxation of ten years, as held by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of
Ganga
and
another
v.
Chief
Development Officer and others. (supra).

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
petition. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge is set aside and the special
appeal is allowed. Both the writ petition
and
the
special
appeal
including
application for interim relief before us
stands disposed of.

9. It is however made clear that this
order shall not prevent the competent
authority under the aforesaid Act to take
appropriate step in accordance with law if
the situation so permits.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000

Ram Ugrah

...Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Vijay Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
law-Absorption-
appellants
earlier worked as Collection peon w.e.f.
1.2.67 to 1.8.75- after retrenchment
again-
applied
for
absorption
on
12.12.86
while
G.O.
dated
28.5.81
providing relaxation of upper age limit
for 10 years was already in operation-
entitled for absorption- direction issued
for consideration within 3 months.

Held- para 12

Vide Government order dated 21.7.84,
the benefits provided in the Government
order dated 23.5.81 was extended till
22.5.87. From a perusal of paragraph 2
kha of the Government order dated
6.7.77
it
is
clear
that
the
State
Government had relaxed the upper age
limit in the case of absorption of
employees retrenched from Class III and
IV posts to the extent the services
rendered prior to retrenchment and for
the period after retrenchment. However,
under
the
Government
order
dated
23.5.81 the relaxation of upper age limit,
as provided in the earlier Government
order dated 6.7.1977, was continued
subject to the maximum relaxation of
age of ten years only. It is not in dispute
that
when
the
appellants-
writ
petitioners made an application for
absorption
on
12.12.86
there
was
relaxation in Upper age limit for a
maximum period of ten years, and
therefore,
they
were
liable
to
be
considered for absorption by giving age
relaxation of ten years, as held by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of
Ganga
and
another
v.
Chief
Development Officer and others. (supra).

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agarwal, J.)

1. Special Appeal No. 519 of 2000
has been filed by Ram Ugrah against the
judgment and order dated 14.7.2000
passed by the learned single Judge in civil
misc. writ petition no. 29840 of 2000,
whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition and held that
there is no error in the decision making
process so far as the discretion exercised
by the authorities in the matter of the age
relaxation is concerned.

2. Special Appeal No. 520 of 2000
has been filed by Ram Sumer against the
judgment and order dated 14.7.2000
passed by the learned Single Judge in
civil misc. writ petition no. 29839 of
2000, whereby the writ petition has been
dismissed with similar observation.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ram Ugrah V. State of U.P. and another
685
3. Since both the special appeals
raise common question of law, they have
been heard together and are being decided
by a common judgment.

4. Ram Urgah, appellant in Special
Appeal No. 519 of 2000 was appointed as
collection peon for realization of Takavi
revenue in the agriculture department on
1.2.967.
He
worked
regularly
till
1.8.1975. Thereafter, he was retrenched.

5. Ram Sumer, appellant- writ
petition in special Appeal No. 520 of
2000 worked as temporary peon for
realization
of
Takavi
revenue
in
agriculture department from 1.7.1969 to
31.8.1975, when he was retrenched. It
appears that some vacancy occurred in
Gandak Samadesh Kshetra Vikas Scheme
under Pariuyojana Adhikari, Gorakhpur,
whereupon, both the appellants made
applications
for
absorption
vide
application dated 12.12.86. According to
the appellants- writ petitioners, their cases
were not considered and instead were
assured that in the next vacancy, they
shall be absorbed.

6. When after waiting for a
considerable period, the services of both
the appellants - writ petitioners were not
absorbed, they approached this Court by
filing separate writ petitions being civil
misc. writ petition no. 3791 and 3790 of
1989 respectively, which were disposed
of by separate judgment and orders dated
25.4.1997 with a direction to make
representations to be decided by the
authority concerned by a speaking order
within two months. The appellants- writ
petitioners made separate representations
on 15.5.97, which was, however, rejected
by the Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Gorakhpur, vide identical order dated
5.5.2000. The writ petitions challenging
the aforesaid order have been dismissed
by the learned Single Judge by the
impugned judgement and orders.

7. We have heard Sri A.K.
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh,
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the
appellant- writ petitioner submitted that it
is not in dispute that both the appellant-
writ petitioners have worked as a peon (a
class -IV post) in the Agriculture
Department for more than six years and
they were retrenched not on account of
their fault, but in view of the policy
decision taken by the State Government.
They
were
entitled
for
absorption.
According to the learned counsel for the
appellants- writ petitioners, since, both
the appellants- writ petitioners have
worked for considerable long period and
they have attained the status of a
permanent employee and in any event
they acquired the right of permanent
absorption in terms of the various
Government
orders
dated
6.7.1977,
21.12.1981 and 21.7.1984. They were
also entitled for relaxation of upper age
limit for absorption. Learned counsel for
the appellants - writ petitioners has relied
upon a Division Bench decision of this
court in the case of Ganga and another v.
Chief Development Officer, Gorakhpur
(writ petition no. 7590 of 1987), decided
on 5.5.1988, wherein this court under
similar circumstances had held that when
petitioner no. 1 therein had applied for
reemployment on his application dated
20.9.1986, he could not be ignored in
pursuance of the Government order dated
23.5.1981, as it mentions that there is no
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
impediment of age, but merely that a
retrenched
employee
must
seek
reemployment within a span of ten years
since when he was last employed.
According to the learned counsel for the
appellants
-
writ
petitioners,
the
appellants- writ petitioners are entitled for
age relaxation and therefore, they ought to
have been absorbed.

9. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned
standing counsel, however, submitted that
the earlier application filed by the
appellants- writ petitioners before the
Project Administrator, Gandak Samadesh
Kshetra Vikas Pariyojana, Gorakhpur, in
the year 1981, could not be considered, as
it was an independent project and nothing
to do with the Agriculture Department. So
far as the representation/application dated
12.12.1986 given by the appellants- writ
petitioners are concerned, he submitted
that
vide
Government
order
dated
6.7.1977, the relaxation in upper age limit
was provided for absorption of retrenched
employee. The Government order was
effective for a period of three years,
which
was
further
extended
vide
Government order dated 23.5.1981 and
21.7.1984
by
which
the
relaxation
continued only upto 22.5.1987. Since
there was no vacancy in the year 1986,
therefore, no action could be taken on the
said representations. Subsequently, vide
Government order dated 22.10.1991 the
relaxation
of
upper
age
limit
for
absorption of retrenched employee was
not extended and it was decided to close
the absorption of retrenched employee
and on a reference being made in respect
of the appellants- writ petitioners and
other similarly situated employees of
Gorakhpur
Division,
the
State
Government took a decision not to relax
the upper age limit and to abide by its
earlier
decision,
which
was
duly
communicated vide letter dated 29.1.99.
The learned standing counsel also took a
plea of laches in approaching this court.
He further submitted that creation of the
post and absorption of surplus retrenched
employee is the sole prerogative of the
State Government and there being no
violation of any Constitutional provisions
or any Act or Rules, the Court should
decline to interfere under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

10. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that there
is no dispute that both the appellants- writ
petitioners are the retrenched employee of
the State Government and are entitled for
being absorbed on priority basis in
accordance with the relevant Government
orders issued by the state Government
from time to time. The question is as to
whether the upper age limit fixed for
appointment on a class -IV post shall be
applicable
or
stands
relaxed.
Vide
Government order dated 6.7.1977, which
dealt with absorption of employees
retrenched from class III and class IV
posts, the State Government had relaxed
the upper age limit. Paragraph 2-K of the
said Government order is reproduced
below :

"RELAXATION OF AGE LIMIT-
Aise karmchariyon ne jitane varsh ki
seva apani chhatani ke purva ki ho
thatha jitani awadhi ke liye vah
chhatani ke karan seva se bahar rahe
ho utane varsh ki aayu seema se un he
chhot pradan ker di jaye."

11. The benefits provided under the
aforesaid
Government
order
was
applicable till 5.7.1980. To redress the
grievance of the retrenched employees,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ram Ugrah V. State of U.P. and another
687
who have not been absorbed till then, the
State Government vide Government order
dated 23.5.81 again relaxed the upper age
limit. Paragraph 2 kha of the Government
order dated 23.5.1981 is reproduced
below:

"Maximum relaxation in age limit-
Aise karmchariyon ne jitney varsh seva
apani chhatani se purva ki ho tatha
jitney avadhi ke liye vah chhatani ke
karan seva se bahar rahe ho utane
varsh ki adhiktam aayu seema se unhe
chhott pradan kar di jaye parantu
pratibandh yah hai ki yah avadhi kisi
bhi dasha me 10 varsh se adhik nahi
hogi."

12. Vide Government order dated
21.7.1984, the benefits provided in the
Government order dated 23.5.1981 was
extended till 22.5.1987. From a perusal of
paragraph 2 ka of the government order
dated 6.7.1977 it is clear that the State
Government had relaxed the upper age
limit in the case of absorption of
employees retrenched from class III and
class IV posts to the extent the services
renders prior to retrenchment and for the
period
after
retrenchment.
However,
under
the
Government
order
dated
23.5.1981, the relaxation of upper age
limit,
as
provided
in
the
earlier
Government order dated 6.7.1977, was
continued
subject
to
the
maximum
relaxation of age of ten years only. It is
not in dispute that when the appellants-
writ petitioners made an application for
absorption on 12.12.1986, there was
relaxation in upper age limit for a
maximum period of ten years, and
therefore,
they
were
liable
to
be
considered for absorption by giving age
relaxation of ten years, as held by a
Division Bench of this court in the case of
Ganga and another v. Chief Development
Officer and others (supra).

13. The learned single Judge was not
correct to hold that the application for
relaxation in the age has been rejected
keeping in view the Government order
dated 29.1.99. The said Government order
would not be applicable in the present
case, inasmuch as the application was
made by the appellants- writ petitioners in
the year 1986, when there was relaxation
in upper age limit provided by the
Government orders dated 23.5.1981 and
21.7.1984. In this view of the matter the
Division Bench decision of this Court
dated 5.5.88 in the case of Ganga and
another v. Chief Development Officer and
others (supra) would be fully applicable.

14. So far as the question of laches
on the part of the appellants- writ
petitioners, as raised by the learned
standing counsel is concerned, it may be
mentioned here that the appellants- writ
petitioners had applied in the year 1986
and when the matter was kept pending
before the authorities, they approached
this court by filing separate writ petitions
in the year 1989, which was disposed of
in the year 1997 with a direction to the
appellants- writ petitioners to make a
representation
before
the
concerned
authority, which was decided only on
5.5.2000, which decision was challenged
immediately by the appellants- writ
petitioners before this court by filing writ
petitions. Thus, there is no laches on the
part of the appellants - writ petitioners so
as to oust them from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

15. The plea that the appointment/
absorption is a policy decision to be taken
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
by the State Government and the court
should not interfere in it, is not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. The Court is not interfering
in any policy decision with respect to
absorption/appointment of an employee,
taken by the State government. It is only
considering the matter in the light of the
policy decision taken by the state
government,
as
contained
in
the
Government order dated 23.3.1981 and
21.7.1984 and had come to the conclusion
that the appellants - writ petitioners are
entitled for relaxation of upper age limit
for a maximum period of ten years.

16. In view of the foregoing
discussion, both the appeals succeed and
are allowed.

17. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge
is set a side. The order dated 5.5.2000
passed by the Deputy Director of
Agriculture is set aside. The respondents
are directed to consider the question of
absorption of both the appellants- writ
petitioners by giving them age relaxation
of ten years as on 12.12.1986 i.e. from the
date of making of the application within
three months from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced before
them.

18. In view of the foregoing
discussions, both the appeals succeed and
are allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 724 of 1994

Bajrangi Pandey and another...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri H.S.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sabhajit Yadav
S.C.

High Court Rules- Chapter VIII Rule 5 -
Revised pay scales of stenographers on
the basis of recommendations of the
second
pay
commission-
all
those
stenographers who are attached with
the Head of Minor Department were held
to be entitled to the revised pay scale.

Held- para 11

We hold that the learned Single Judge
was not justified in arriving at conclusion
that the revised pay scale of Rs.5701100
is
applicable
only
to
those
stenographers who are attached with
the District Judge Members of Tribunal
and Chairman of Co operative Tribunals.
The appellants writ petitioners are,
therefore, entitled to be placed in the
revised pay scale of Rs.570-1100.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agarwal, J.)

1. The present special appeal has
been filed by Bajrangi Pandey and Ram
Mohan Singh against the judgment and
order dated 6th September, 1994 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc.