# Rama Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1474
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7143 of 2012
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-shanker-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43047
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Promotion on post of Sadar Munsarimcriteria for promotion-whether as per
provision of Rules 20(3) of subordinate
Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rule
1947
or
U.P.
Government
Servant
Service
Criteria
for
Recruitment
or
promotion Rules 1994-applicable-heldas per law developed by Apex Court in
Om Prakash Shukla Case-rule framed by
government under Art. 309-provision of
U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules
1991-would
cover
the
controversyobjection that in absence of pleadingabout such fundamental question-court
can not shut its eyes-nor omission on
part of petitioner can validate act of
respondent-selection
on
basis
of
seniority subject to rejection of unfitnot sustainable-petition allowed with
consequential direction.
Held: Para-23,24,27,28

## Text

1474
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Settlement Officer of Consolidation is
restored.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7143 of 2012
Rama Shanker Pandey
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Upadhyay, Sri Anand
Mohan Pandey, Sri Prabha Shanker Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Ranjan
Srivastava, Sri Yashwant Verma, Sri Sameer
Sharma
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Promotion on post of Sadar Munsarimcriteria for promotion-whether as per
provision of Rules 20(3) of subordinate
Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rule
1947
or
U.P.
Government
Servant
Service
Criteria
for
Recruitment
or
promotion Rules 1994-applicable-heldas per law developed by Apex Court in
Om Prakash Shukla Case-rule framed by
government under Art. 309-provision of
U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules
1991-would
cover
the
controversyobjection that in absence of pleadingabout such fundamental question-court
can not shut its eyes-nor omission on
part of petitioner can validate act of
respondent-selection
on
basis
of
seniority subject to rejection of unfitnot sustainable-petition allowed with
consequential direction.
Held: Para-23,24,27,28
23. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Omvir Sharma (Supra) was
seized with a similar issue i.e. whether
the criteria for determination of seniority
as laid down in 'Rules 1947' would be
applicable or the criteria laid down in the
U.P.
Government
Servants
Seniority
Rules, 1991 would apply to the cadre of
service in the District Courts and after
considering the relevant provisions and
relying
upon
the
judgment
of
the
Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla's
case AIR 1986 (SC) 1043, it also came to
the conclusion that seniority will have to
be determined as per the Seniority Rules
of 1991 framed under the Rule making
power of the Governor under Article 309
and not 'Rules of 1947, made under the
Government of India Act, 1935, in view
of the inconsistency, therefore, the view
taken in this case is supported by the
said Division Bench judgment also.
24.
In this context, I am not able to
accept the submissions of Sri Sameer
Sharma for the reason, firstly, the terms
and conditions of service including the
criteria of promotion is to be governed by
the rules made by the competent authority
and not by the consent of the parties nor by
alleged acquiescence of any party. The
issue of criteria for promotion goes to the
root of the matter. It was incumbent upon
the
selecting
authority,
as
also
the
appointing authority, to first of all, ascertain
the criteria of promotion and the Rule
relevant in this context, especially, when a
Division Bench of this Court in Omvir
Sharma
case
(Supra)
had
already
considered a similar issue relating to
seniority
and
vide
judgment
dated
13.07.2010 had already held that it is the
Seniority
Rules,
1991
issued
by
the
Governor, which would apply and not the
'Rules 1947' made under the Government
of India Act, 1935. Merely because this plea
has not been raised in the pleadings, the
Court cannot shut its eyes to such a
fundamental question nor can this omission
on the part of the petitioner, validate an
apparently
unsustainable
act
of
the
respondents.
27. The selection was based on
comparative assessment of merit of the
candidates by holding an interview and
3 All]. Rama Shanker Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1475
not on the basis of 'seniority subject to
rejection of unfit', therefore, it cannot be
sustained. The question as to whether
interview could be held for assessing the
fitness of a candidate, on the basis of
criteria of 'seniority subject to rejection
of unfit' is left open for being considered
by the competent authority in the light
of the provisions of law and the past
practice which is not contrary to Rules
but with the rider that there has to be
uniformity in the matter. It would be
impermissible to hold interview in one
judgeship but not in others.
28. For the reasons aforesaid, the
submission that once the petitioner has
appeared in the selection it was not open
for him to challenge the same, is also not
acceptable, as, this principle does not
apply in the facts of this case. It is the
respondents, who have a committed a
folly by applying a wrong rule and a
wrong criteria for selection; the issue, is
too fundamental to be brushed aside on
this submission of Sri Sharma.
Case Law discussed:
2010(9) ADJ 658
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard Sri M.K. Upadhyay
alongwith Sri A.M. Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer
Sharma for the respondent and Sri A.K.
Srivastava for the Respondent No.5.
2. This matter was heard earlier and
judgment was reserved on 05.12.2014,
however, while going through the record
and perusing the judgment of this Court in
the case of Sayed Muttaqui Raza Vs.
District Judge, Banda, reported in 1999
Law Suit (All) 947 it was revealed that
there
are
Rules
known
as
U.P.
Government
Service
Criteria
for
Recruitment or Promotion Rules, 1994
(hereinafter referred as 'Rules, 1994'),
according to which, the criteria for
promotion to the post in question would
be 'seniority subject to rejection of unfit'
and not 'merit with due regard to seniority'
as is provided in Sub Rule 3 of Rule 20 of
the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial
Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter
referred as 'Rules, 1947'). Rules of 1947,
accordingly, the matter was posted for
rehearing
today
vide
order
dated
08.12.2014 which reads as under:-
"The judgment was reserved in this
case on 5.12.2014. After going through
the records, I find that the parties have
not addressed the Court on the issue as to
whether
U.P.
Government
Servants
Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion
Rules, 1994 or Rule 20 (3) of the U.P.
Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
Establishment Rules, 1947 will apply in
the instant case. This Court in Syyed
Muttaqui Raza vs. District Judge, Banda,
1999 Law Suit (All), 947 took note of this
issue but did not give any categorical
finding in this regard.
List this case for rehearing on
11.12.2014 at 10A.M. "
3. Today the matter has been heard.
4. The dispute in this writ petition
relates to promotion of Respondent No.5
to the post of Sadar Munsarim in the
judgeship of Allahabad. There are two
posts of Sadar Munsarim. The dispute
revolves round promotion on one of the
post.
5. Sri Sameer Sharma, learned
counsel for the respondent submits firstly
that the petitioners have not taken any
plea regarding applicability of the 'Rules
1994' in the pleadings, therefore, it is not
open for this Court to consider the same
1476
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the absence of any pleading. In fact in
paragraph 40 the petitioner has himself
pleaded violation of Rule 20 sub Rule 3 of
the Rule 1947, therefore, even according
to him Rules 1947 apply. In the
alternative, Sri Sameer Sharma submitted
that assuming though not conceding that
the Rules 1994 were applicable, the
petitioner was not found fit, therefore, the
promotion in question is not liable to be
interfered with and no relief can be
granted to him. Moreover, there was one
person senior to the petitioner, therefore,
for this reason also he is not entitled for
any relief. He also submitted that once the
petitioner has appeared in the selection for
promotion then it was not open to him to
challenge
the
process/procedure,
including the criteria, adopted therein.
6. Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel
for
the
Respondent
No.5
supported the stand of Sri Sameer Sharma
and took the same plea.
7. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if, the plea regarding applicability of
Rule 20(3) of Rules, 1947 had not been
taken, the respondents were under an
obligation to determine as to which rule
was applicable and to act accordingly.
8. The terms and condition of
service relating to the post of Sadar
Munsarim are governed by the 'Rules,
1947', which were notified on 01.08.1947
in pursuance to the provisions of Clause
(b) of Sub Section (1) and Clause (b) of
Sub Section (2) of Section 241 of the
Government of India Act, 1935, in
suppression of all existing Rules and
Orders on the subject, by the Governor of
United
Provinces,
for
regulating
appointment
to
the
Ministerial
establishment of the Civil Court in the
United Provinces subordinate to the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the
Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow.
9. Even after framing of the
Constitution of India the said Rules have
continued to govern the terms and
conditions of service of the post in
question, in view of the provisions
contained in Article 313 (Part XIV
Chapter 1) of the Constitution of India)
and Article 372 thereof.
10. The incumbents of the post of
Sadar Munsarim as also those holding the
feeder posts in the District Courts in the
State of U.P. are Government Servants
and there is no dispute regarding their
status as such, thus, the provisions
contained in Article 309 to 313 of the
Constitution of India are applicable to
them, as, they are appointed to Public
Services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
11. The Government of Uttar Pradesh
in exercise of the power vested under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India has framed the 'Rules 1994', which
were notified in the Gazette on 10.10.1994,
these Rules were amended firstly in the year
1998 and thereafter on 12.08.2010. Rule 1(3)
of the 'Rules, 1994' provides that they shall
apply to the recruitment by promotion to a
post or service for which no consultation
with the Public Service Commission is
required on the principle to be followed in
making promotion under the U.P. Public
Service Commission Limitation of Functions
Regulations, 1954, as amended from time to
time.
12. It is not in dispute that the post
in question is not one for which
3 All]. Rama Shanker Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1477
consultation with the Public Service
Commission
is
required,
therefore,
covered by the said Rules. Rule 2 of the
said Rule of 1994 gives overriding effect
to it over anything to the contrary
contained in any other service Rules made
by the Governor under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution or Orders
for the time being in force. Rule 4 of the
said
Rules,
1994
as
amended
on
12.08.2010 i.e. prior to the selection in
question held on 07.07.2011, reads as
under:-
"4. Criterion for recruitment by
promotion-Recruitment by promotion to
the post of Head of Department, to a post
just one rank below the Head of
Department and to a post in any service
carrying the pay Band 4 (Rs.37,40067,000) and Grade Pay Rs.8,700 or above
shall be made on the basis of merit, and to
rest of the posts in all services to be filled
by promotion, including a post where
promotion is made from a non-Gazetted
post to a Gazetted post or from one
service to another service, shall be made
on the basis of seniority subject to the
rejection of the unfit."
13. It is not in dispute that the
promotion in question was held by the
respondents on the basis of criteria of
'merit with due regard to seniority' as
prescribed in sub Rule 3 of sub Rule 20 of
the Rules, 1947 and not the criteria of
'seniority subject to rejection of unfit' The
proceedings of the Selection Committee
reveal that there was a comparative
assessment of merit of the candidates for
selecting the 'most meritorious' which is
not done under the criteria of seniority
subject
to
rejection
of
unfit.
The
Respondent No.5 was selected, in spite of
being junior, as he was of 'Outstanding
Merit' and the petitioner, in spite of being
senior was not found efficient. This
position that there was a comparative
assessment of merit as per Rules, 1947
has not been disputed even at the bar. It is
also not in dispute that there is one
eligible person senior to the petitioner
herein and that the Respondent No.5 was
the junior most amongst the eligible
persons.
14. The question which falls for
consideration and which is purely a legal
one, is, whether the Rules of 1994 or the
Rules of 1947 would apply for the
purpose of determining the criteria for
promotion to the post of Sadar Munsarim
in the District Courts including the
judgeship of Allahabad.
15. If it is found that Rule 4 of the
'Rules of 1994' will apply then, in its
light, it will have to be determined as to
whether the criteria for promotion to the
post in question is 'merit or seniority
subject to rejection of unfit'. If it is found
that it is the latter then the entire
proceedings
based
on
the
criteria
prescribed under Sub Rule 3 of Rule 20 of
Rules 1947 i.e. 'merit with due regard to
seniority', will stand vitiated and a fresh
selection would be required.
16. The 'Rules 1947' were made
under the Government of India Act, 1935,
prior to coming into force of Constitution
of India. However, as per Article 313 of
the Constitution of India read with Article
372 thereof, such Rules continued to be
applicable to any public service or any
post which continues to exist after the
commencement of the constitution as an
All India Service or as Service or post
under the Union or a State, so far as
consistent with the provisions of the
1478
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution and until other provision is
made
in
this
behalf
under
the
Constitution.
17. After coming into force of the
Constitution of India and in view of the
provisions contained in Article 309
thereof the State Government has framed
'Rules, 1994' as already referred herein
above, for regulating the criteria for
promotion to the posts mentioned herein.
These Rules have been framed in exercise
of powers under the proviso Article 309.
Rules 1994 have overriding effect over all
other Rules, or orders, therefore, in the
event of inconsistency the same will
override the Rules 1947 also, especially in
view of the provisions contained in
Article 313 which contain the word, "until
other provision is made in this behalf
under this constitution".
18. A Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Omvir Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. & others, reported in 2010(9) ADJ
658 has held that the term 'Service Rules'
used in Rule 4(g) of the U.P. Government
Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 includes
the Service Rules made under the
Government of India Act, 1935. Based on
the same reasoning the Rules, 1947 are
covered under Rule 2 of the Rules, 1994.
Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as
under:-
"The crucial words in the Rule 2 as
quoted above is that rules shall apply to
all Government servants in respect of
whose recruitment and conditions of
service, rules may be or have been made
by the Governor. The submission pressed
by learned Counsel for the appellant is
that since no rules were framed under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India regarding determination of
seniority earlier and the Rules, 1991
supersedes
the rules
framed
under
provision to Article 309, it can have no
effect on the 1947 Rules. The above
submission is fallacious as noticed above.
The applicability of Rules can be judged
on two scores. Firstly, if the rule under
proviso to Article 309 may be framed by
the Governor and secondly the Rule under
proviso to Article 309 have been made by
the Governor. Non framing of any earlier
rules under Article 309 is not decisive.
The competence of Governor to frame
Rule under proviso to Article 309 is
sufficient enough to apply the 1991 Rules.
It cannot be denied that ministerial staffs
of the subordinate courts are within the
rule making power of the Governor. 1950
Rules as noticed above have already been
held to be applicable to the ministerial
staffs of the subordinate courts by the
apex Court in O.P. Shukla case (supra).
Thus when the Governor is competent to
frame rule under Article 309, the 1991
Rules shall be applicable The word
service rules have been defined under rule
4 (g). Service rule under rule 4(g)
includes
administrative
instructions
issued by the Governor regulating the
recruitment and conditions of service of
persons, why statutory Rules framed
under section 241 of the Government of
India Act can be held not to be service
rules is not understandable. Rules framed
by the Governor prior to the Constitution
of India under section 241 of the
Government of India Act are also service
rules within the meaning of 1991 Rules
which shall be overridden by 1991 Rules.
Again the said issue has already been
decided in O.P. Shukla's case (supra)
which has held that 1947 Rules shall be
impliedly overruled by 1950 Rules for the
subject which has been covered by 1950
Rules."
3 All]. Rama Shanker Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
19.
Now,
the
question
for
consideration is as to whether there is any
conflict between sub Rule 3 of Rule 20 of
the 'Rules, 1947' and Rule 4 of the 'Rules
1994'.
20. Not much discussion is required
on this issue as a conjoint reading of the
said Rules leaves no doubt that there is
apparent difference in the two provisions.
As per Rule 4, in the matters of promotion
to the post of Head of the Department,
one post lower in rank to that of the Head
of the Department and the posts in any
service carrying pay band 4 (3740067000) and grade pay Rs.8700 or above,
shall be made on the basis of' 'merit' and
the rest of the posts in all services to be
filled up by promotion, including a post
where promotion is made from a nongazetted post to a gazetted post or from
one service to another service shall be
made on the basis of seniority subject to
rejection of unfit. The post of Sadar
Munsarim does not carry pay band 4. The
pay scale of Sadar Munsarim is (Rs.930034800, grade pay 4600), therefore, in
view of the aforesaid Rule 4 of the Rules
of 1994, the post of Sadar Munsarim is
not one to be filled by promotion on the
basis of 'merit', in stead, it is a post which
is to be filled by promotion on the basis of
'seniority subject to rejection of unfit'.
Thus the criteria for promotion under
Rule 4 of 'Rules, 1994' is either merit or
'seniority subject to rejection of unfit'
depending upon the factors mentioned
therein, whereas under Rule 20(3) of
Rules, 1947 it is 'merit with due regard to
seniority, which is apparently different
and inconsistent with the criteria under
the Rules 1994. Neither 'merit nor
seniority subject to rejection of unfit can
be equated with 'merit with due regard to
seniority'. The Governor in exercise of his
rule making power under Article 309 has
also made "The U.P. Promotion by
Selection (on post outside the preview of
the
Public
Service
Commission)
eligibility list Rules, 1986, which have
been amended from time to time. These
Rules lay down the criteria for preparing
the eligibility lists for promotion based on
'merit' and seniority subject to unfit,
separately.
21.

In
view
of
the
above
inconsistency in Rule 4 of 'Rules 1994'
and Sub Rule 3 of Rule 20 of the 'Rules
1947' it is the former which will prevail
and not the latter. In view of the words
"until other provision is made in this
behalf under this Constitution", occurring
in Article 313 of the Constitution of India,
the words "but subject to other provisions
of this Constitution" occurring in Article
372 and also in view of the non-obstante
clause contained in Rule 2 of Rules 1994,
the criteria of promotion applicable in this
case is seniority subject to unfit and not
'merit with due regard to seniority'.
22. As the promotion in question has
been held on the basis of the criteria of
'merit with due regard to seniority' as
prescribed under Sub Rule 3 of Rule 20
and not on the basis of the criteria of
seniority subject to rejection of unfit as
prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules
1994, therefore, the very premise on
which the selection has been held, is
contrary to the mandatory provision
contained in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994,
accordingly,
the
same
cannot
be
sustained.
23. A Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Omvir Sharma (Supra) was
seized with a similar issue i.e. whether the
criteria for determination of seniority as
1480
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
laid down in 'Rules 1947' would be
applicable or the criteria laid down in the
U.P. Government Servants Seniority
Rules, 1991 would apply to the cadre of
service in the District Courts and after
considering the relevant provisions and
relying upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Om Prakash Shukla's case AIR
1986 (SC) 1043, it also came to the
conclusion that seniority will have to be
determined as per the Seniority Rules of
1991 framed under the Rule making
power of the Governor under Article 309
and not 'Rules of 1947, made under the
Government of India Act, 1935, in view
of the inconsistency, therefore, the view
taken in this case is supported by the said
Division Bench judgment also.
24. In this context, I am not able to
accept the submissions of Sri Sameer
Sharma for the reason, firstly, the terms
and conditions of service including the
criteria of promotion is to be governed by
the rules made by the competent authority
and not by the consent of the parties nor
by alleged acquiescence of any party. The
issue of criteria for promotion goes to the
root of the matter. It was incumbent upon
the selecting authority, as also the
appointing authority, to first of all,
ascertain the criteria of promotion and the
Rule relevant in this context, especially,
when a Division Bench of this Court in
Omvir Sharma case (Supra) had already
considered a similar issue relating to
seniority
and
vide
judgment
dated
13.07.2010 had already held that it is the
Seniority Rules, 1991 issued by the
Governor, which would apply and not the
'Rules 1947' made under the Government
of India Act, 1935. Merely because this
plea has not been raised in the pleadings,
the Court cannot shut its eyes to such a
fundamental
question
nor
can
this
omission on the part of the petitioner,
validate an apparently unsustainable act
of the respondents.
25. Moreover, as this Court had
already put the learned counsels for the
respective parties to notice about the
aforesaid issue, while posting the matter
for rehearing vide its order dated
08.12.2014, and it being purely a question
of law, it cannot be said that any prejudice
has been caused to the respective parties
on account of absence of pleading on the
issue, therefore, for this reason also, the
submission
of
Sri
Sharma
is
not
acceptable.
26. So far as the fitness or otherwise
of the petitioner is concerned, the same is
to be assessed by the selecting authority
as per the criteria mentioned in the
relevant rules, but, the selection in
question was held on the basis of a wrong
criteria applying an inapplicable rule.
27. The selection was based on
comparative assessment of merit of the
candidates by holding an interview and
not on the basis of 'seniority subject to
rejection of unfit', therefore, it cannot be
sustained. The question as to whether
interview could be held for assessing the
fitness of a candidate, on the basis of
criteria of 'seniority subject to rejection of
unfit' is left open for being considered by
the competent authority in the light of the
provisions of law and the past practice
which is not contrary to Rules but with
the rider that there has to be uniformity in
the matter. It would be impermissible to
hold interview in one judgeship but not in
others.
28. For the reasons aforesaid, the
submission that once the petitioner has
3 All]. Ram Kishan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1481
appeared in the selection it was not open
for him to challenge the same, is also not
acceptable, as, this principle does not
apply in the facts of this case. It is the
respondents, who have a committed a
folly by applying a wrong rule and a
wrong criteria for selection; the issue, is
too fundamental to be brushed aside on
this submission of Sri Sharma.
29. Sri Sameer Sharma invited the
attention of the Court to the 'U.P. State
District Courts Service Rules, 2013,
which have come into force w.e.f.
04.07.2013, which now regulate the terms
and conditions of service of the posts in
question. As per Rule 4 read with
Scheduled 'B' thereof the criteria of
promotion to the post in question is
'seniority cum merit'. Vide Rule 29
thereof the Rules, 1947 have been
repealed. In my view this does not make
any difference to the case, as, the
selection in question herein was held prior
to 04.07.2013. The process of selection
having been initiated and completed prior
to 04.07.2013, in my view, the vacancy
will have to be filled in according to the
Rues, 1994.
30. The other submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties assuming
the application of Rule 20(3) of Rules,
1947, need no consideration.
31. In view of the above discussion,
the order of promotion of the Respondent
No.5 dated 05.01.2012, passed by the
District Judge, Allahabad cannot be
sustained and is quashed. The selection
proceedings on the basis of which the said
promotion order was issued are declared a
nullity in the eyes of law. However, as the
post in question should not remain vacant,
it is provided that the Respondent No.5
shall continue to function as Sadar
Munsarim on the same terms and
conditions on which he has been
continuing. No recovery of financial
benefits already given shall be made from
him. His continuance shall be subject to
the fresh selection and promotion to be
made by the respondents, expeditiously, if
possible, before 15.01.2015. So far as
Relief No.2 is concerned, the same cannot
be considered at this stage as it will
depend upon the fresh selection to be
held, as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the
petitioner informs that the other post of
Sadar Munsarim is lying vacant since
2009, accordingly it is provided that, if
there is no legal impediment then the
respondents may consider filling up the
said post also accordingly.
32. Subject to above, the writ
petition is allowed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8309 of 2001
Ram Kishan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shamsher Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-claim of
Back
wages-petitioner
running
under
suspension w.e.f. 9.5.82 to 27.04.96-on
pendency of criminal trail-after acquittal
allowed to join-no disciplinary proceeding