# State of U.P v. State Backward Commission U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-19
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 5933 of 2005
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-state-backward-commission-u-p-and-others-42502
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri B.K. Chaudhary
Ari A.K. Chaudhary
Sri Alok Kumar
Sri B.L. Maurya
Sri N.L. Pandey

U.P. State Commission for Backward
Classes Act.1996-Section-10- Power of
Commission-to
adjudicate
individual
grievances-when
legislature
silentcommission
has
no
authority
to
adjudicate the individual grievances-in
absence of power like Court or Tribunalorder quashed.

Held: Para-18

A
perusal
of
impugned
order
dated
13.08.2004, passed by the Commission
reveals that the Commission not only
required the authorities of the Education
Department to submit their reply but also
proceeded to decide the complaint as a lis
between the complainants and authorities
of the Education Department and after
discussing the matter at length has given a
finding to the effect that the complainants
are liable to be promoted in lecturer's grade
and further that they are entitled to the
salary of the said grade. The manner in
which the Commission appears to have
proceeded and recorded its finding leaves
no room of doubt that it not only
entertained but even decided the individual
dispute raised by the complainants in
respect
of
their
individual
grievances
pertaining to their service conditions.
Case Law discussed:
[2011 (1) ADJ 112 (DB)]

## Text

370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
195(1)(a) or 195(1)(b), cognizance taken
by Magistrate would be bad because the
same would be against the procedure
established by law as contained in Section
195 readwith Section 340 and 343 Cr.P.C.

(29) In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, this court is of
the firm view that matter should be sent
back to the Trial Court to give specific
finding with reasons on the basis of
material available on police diary whether
this case is covered under section 195
Cr.P.C. or not ? In case, trial court comes
to the conclusion that case does not falls
within the ambit of section 195 Cr.P.C.,
only in that event, that court shall proceed
with the trial.

(30) In view of the above it is
provided that till the Trial Court takes
decision on the aforesaid issue, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner.

(31) With this observation, petition is
finally disposed of.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.

Service Single No. 5933 of 2005

State of U.P.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Backward Commission U.P. and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.K. Chaudhary
Ari A.K. Chaudhary
Sri Alok Kumar
Sri B.L. Maurya
Sri N.L. Pandey

U.P. State Commission for Backward
Classes Act.1996-Section-10- Power of
Commission-to
adjudicate
individual
grievances-when
legislature
silentcommission
has
no
authority
to
adjudicate the individual grievances-in
absence of power like Court or Tribunalorder quashed.

Held: Para-18

A
perusal
of
impugned
order
dated
13.08.2004, passed by the Commission
reveals that the Commission not only
required the authorities of the Education
Department to submit their reply but also
proceeded to decide the complaint as a lis
between the complainants and authorities
of the Education Department and after
discussing the matter at length has given a
finding to the effect that the complainants
are liable to be promoted in lecturer's grade
and further that they are entitled to the
salary of the said grade. The manner in
which the Commission appears to have
proceeded and recorded its finding leaves
no room of doubt that it not only
entertained but even decided the individual
dispute raised by the complainants in
respect
of
their
individual
grievances
pertaining to their service conditions.
Case Law discussed:
[2011 (1) ADJ 112 (DB)]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J)

1. As to whether U.P. State
Commission
for
Backward
Classes
(hereinafter referred to as ' Commission')
constituted under U.P. State Commission
for Backward Classes Act, 1996 is
couched with power and authority under
Section 9 read with Section 10 of the said
1 All] State of U.P. Vs. State Backward Commission U.P. and others
371
Act to determine a lis relating to service
matter of an individual is the question
which is engaging attention of this Court
in the instant writ petition.

2. Heard Sri Himanshu Shekhar,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioners-
State
of
U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Education
Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow and others and
learned counsel for Commission as well
as learned counsel for complainants and
perused the documents and material
available on record.

3. Facts of the case which led to
filing of the instant writ petition whereby
a challenge has been thrown by the State
of U.P. to an order dated 13.08.2004,
passed by the Commission in Case No.
226 of 2000, Ram Sewak and others -
versus-
Regional
Joint
Director
of
Education, Lucknow, are that a complaint
by Sri Ram Sewak, Sri Divakar Singh and
Sri Brij Gopal was made to the
Commission praying therein that an
appropriate direction be issued to make
available lecturer's pay-scale to them and
to relieve them of alleged exploitation. In
the said complaint, it was stated by the
complainants that they had teaching in
intermediate classes of Sohan Lal Higher
Secondary
School,
Rajendra
Nagar,
Lucknow since July, 1998 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Institution') but no efforts
were made by the Management of the said
Institution regarding their promotion and
payment of pay-scale of lecture grade. It
was also stated in the said complaint that
the Institution was recognized to run high
school and intermediate classes along
with the financial grant under which the
high school and intermediate classes are
being run. However, for certain reasons,
with the consent and concurrence of the
District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow,
intermediate classes were suspended for
some years.

4. On the aforesaid complaint, it
appears that the Commission required
District Inspector of Schools and other
authorities of the Education Department
to furnish their reply, in compliance
thereof the District Inspector of Schools
submitted his reply by means of a letter
dated
17.02.2003,
which
has
been
annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ
petition. In the said reply, it was stated by
the District Inspector of Schools that the
Institution in question is recognized for
high school classes and is in grant-in-aid
scheme for the classes upto high school
level. Further, so far as the intermediate
classes (11th and 12th) are concerned, the
recognition to the Institution though has
been
granted,
however,
intermediate
classes are not covered by grant-in-aid
scheme. It was further replied by the
District Inspector of Schools that no posts
in the Institution have been sanctioned in
lecturer's grade. It was also informed that
the intermediate classes were earlier
ordered to be abolished by means of an
order dated 12.07.1961 and thereafter, the
Institution
was
recognized
for
intermediate classes without any grant
from the State Government, vide order
dated 13.9.1997. The District Inspector of
Schools further submitted in his reply to
the Commission that the complainants,
namely, Sri Ram Sewak, Sri Divakar
Singh
and
Sri
Brij
Gopal
are
regular/permanent LT Grade teachers in
the Institution and they are getting their
salary in the said grade from the State
exchequer. He also stated that as per
report submitted by the principal of the
Institution,
the
complainants
were
required to teach the intermediate classes
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
for
sometime
when
the
Institution
received recognition for intermediate
classes without any grant, however,
subsequently, the teaching work from the
complaints was stopped being taken. The
District Inspector of Schools further
stated that in case recognition is granted
in an Institution without any State grant
then in that event payment to the teachers
teaching in subjects which are recognized
without State grant is made by the college
management. Lastly, he categorically
stated in his reply that in absence of any
sanctioned
post
of
lecturer's
grade
available
in
the
institution,
the
complainants are not legally entitled to be
paid the pay-scale of lecturer's grade.

5. The matter was considered by the
Commission which appears to have
treated the complaint to be decided as a lis
between complainants and authorities of
education department of the District,
Lucknow. The Commission, thus, passed
impugned order dated 13.08.2004 holding
therein that the complainants Ram Sewak
and Brij Gopal are entitled to be promoted
on the lecturer's grade and they are also
entitled to be paid salary of the said grade.

6. Assailing the order dated
13.08.2004,
Sri
Himanshu
Shekher,
learned counsel appearing for the State
has submitted that though Commission is
a creation of statute made by the State
Legislature, however, under the statutory
scheme of the said legislative enactment
under which Commission has been
created, the Commission has not been
trusted any lawful authority to adjudicate
any individual dispute between the
parties, specially a dispute of nature
which was enquired into and adjudicated
by the Commission in the instant case.

7. On the other hand, learned
counsels appearing for the complainantsopposite parties and the Commission have
tried their best, though in vain, to defend
the order dated 13.08.2004, passed by the
Commission arguing, inter-alia, that the
Commission has been vested with ample
powers under Section 9 (b and c) of U.P.
State Commission for Backward Classes
Act, 1996. Drawing attention of the Court
to the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it
has been submitted by the learned
counsels appearing for the Commission as
well as complainants that under subclause (b) of Section 9 of the Act, the
Commission has been vested with ample
authority to investigate and monitor all
the
matters
relating
to
safeguards
provided for the backward classes and
further that the Commission can enquire
into a specific complaint as well and
make
appropriate
orders
and
recommendations. It has also been stated
that the order dated 13.08.2004 is not a
direction; rather it is an opinion of the
Commission.

8. I have given my anxious
consideration to the competing arguments
raised by the learned counsels for the
respective parties.

9. State Commission for Backward
Classes has been constituted by the State
Government under Section 3 of the Act.
The
functions
and
powers
of
the
Commission can be found in Chapter 3 of
the Act. Section 9 contains prescriptions
which provide for functions of the
Commission. Section 9 of the Act runs as
under:-

"9. Functions of the Commission -
(1) The Commission shall perform all or
any of the following functions, namely -
1 All] State of U.P. Vs. State Backward Commission U.P. and others
373

(a) the Commission shall examine
requests for inclusion of any class of
citizens as a Backward Class in the
Schedule and hear complains of wrong
inclusion
or
non-inclusion
of
any
Backward Class in the Schedule and
tender
such
advice
to
the
State
Government as it deems appropriate;

(b) to investigate and monitor all
matters
relating
to
the
safeguards
provided for the Backward Classes under
any law for the time being in force or
under any order of the State Government
and to evaluate the working of such
safeguards;

(c)to enquire into specific complaints
with respect to the deprivation of rights
and safeguards of the backward Classes;

(d) to participate and advise on the
planning
process
of
socio-economic
development of the backward Classes and
to
evaluate
the
progress
of
their
development;

(e)
to
present
to
the
State
Government annually and at such other
times as the Commission may deem fit,
reports upon the working of those
safeguards;

(f)
to
make
in
such
reports
recommendations, as to the measures that
should be taken by the State government
or the effective implementation of those
safeguards and other measures for the
protection, welfare and socio-economic
development of the backward Classes;
and

(g) to discharge such other function
in relation to the protection, welfare,
development and advancement of the
backward Classes as may be referred to it
by the State Government.

(2) The State Government shall
cause the reports of the Commission to be
laid before each House of the State
Legislature along with it memorandum
explaining the action taken or proposed to
be taken on the recommendations and the
reason for the non-acceptance, if any, of
any such recommendations."

10. Section 10 of the Act vests
certain powers to the Commission and
states that while performing its functions
under Section 9 of the Act, the
Commission shall have all the powers of a
civil court in respect of matter pertaining
to
summoning
and
enforcing
the
attendance and examining the person on
oath,
requiring
the
discovery
and
production of any document, receiving
evidence on affidavits, calling for any
public record or its copy, issuing
commissions for examination of witnesses
and documents and any other matter
which may be prescribed. Section 10 of
the Act is also quoted herein as under:-

"10.Powers of the Commission:-
The Commission shall, while performing
its functions under sub-section (1) of
Section 9, have all the powers of a civil
court trying a suit and in particular, in
respect of the following matters, namely:-

a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath;

b) requiring the discovery and
production of any document;

c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

d) requisitioning any public record
or copy thereof from any court or office;

e) issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses and documents;
and

f) any other matter which may be
prescribed."

11. As observed above, the issue
which needs an answer in the instant case
is as to whether in exercise of its
functions and powers under Sections 9
and 10 of the Act, the Commission can
entertain and decide an individual dispute
pertaining to the alleged grievances of an
individual relating to matter concerning
his service conditions.

12. So far as Section 10 of the Act is
concerned,
it
gives
power
to
the
Commission
in
certain
matters
enumerated therein to exercise certain
powers of a civil court. A close scrutiny
of Section 9 of the Act discloses that the
basic function of the Commission is to
entertain the requests for inclusion of any
class of citizens as a backward class in the
Schedule and to hear complaints of wrong
inclusion or non-inclusion of any backward
class in the Schedule of the Act. The
Commission has further been mandated to
tender its advise to the State Government as
may be deemed appropriate by it. The
Commission has also been given authority
to investigate and monitor all matters
relating to the safeguards provided for the
Backward Classes under law and also to
make an evaluation of the working of such
safeguards. It can also enquire into specific
complaints with respect to deprivation of
rights and safeguards of the Backward
Classes. Various other functions have also
been prescribed under Section 9 including
presentation of reports to the State
Government annually on working of such
safeguards provided for to the Backward
Classes. It is also couched with an authority
to make recommendations as regards the
measures which should be taken by the
State
Government
for
effectively
implementing the safeguards and measures
for protection, welfare and socio-economic
development of the Backward Classes.

13. The functions, thus, entrusted by
the State Legislature to the Commission
are related to a class action, meaning
thereby, the Commission is mandated to
discharge its functions in a manner that
appropriately ensures safeguarding the
protections and rights provided by law to
the Backward Classes. The Commission
is not vested with an authority or power or
jurisdiction to decide an individual
dispute, specially the dispute of the nature
which has been decided in the instant case
which is primarily related to the alleged
grievance of the complainant that they are
not being promoted to the lecturer grade
and further that they are not being paid
their salary in the said grade.

14. The intermediate institutions in
the State of U.P. are governed by the
provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921. The matters relating to service
conditions of the teachers and nonteaching
staffs
working
in
these
institutions
are
governed
by
the
provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921, the U.P. Secondary Education
(Services Selection Boards) Act 1982 and
the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers and other Employees) Act,
1971. The complainants, or for that matter
any other teaching or non-teaching staff,
1 All] State of U.P. Vs. State Backward Commission U.P. and others
375
having any grievance concerning the
matters related to their service conditions
in the institution could approach the
authorities of the education department or
could take recourse to knocking the doors
of the courts seeking appropriate legal
remedy which may be available to such a
person under law. However, as observed
above, the scheme of the Act under which
the Commission has been constituted
clearly shows that the Commission has
not been constituted to entertain or decide
an individual dispute concerning service
conditions of the employees including
teachers working in an intermediate
institutions.

15. The aforesaid view finds support
from a Division Bench judgment of this
Court reported in [2011(1) ADJ 112
(DB)], Prof. Banarsi Tripathi versus
State of U.P. and others. In this
judgment, this Court has in unequivocal
terms held that investigation and enquiry
referred to in various sub-clauses of
Section 9 of the Act are not provided to
be made in respect of any grievance
relating to enforcement of the rights of
any individual. It has further been held
that Section 9 (a, b, d, e, f and g) also
talks
of
rights
and
safeguards
of
Backward
Classes
and
not
of
an
individual. The relevant paragraphs 36,
38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the said judgment
in the case of Prof. Banarsi Tripathi
(supra) are reproduced below:-

36. Section 9 (1) (a) of the State Act
is couched in the same language as
Section 9 (1) of the Central Act, except
that the word 'wrong inclusion' in place of
'over-inclusion'. The word more or less
carry the same meaning. The State Act
provides for further powers to the
Commission under Section 9 (1) (b), (c),
(d), (e) and (f). The Commission may also
discharge such other function under
Clause (g) in relation to protection,
welfare, development and advancement of
the Backward Classes as may be referred
to it by the State Government. Sub-clause
(b)
provide
for
investigation
and
monitoring of all matters relating to
safeguards provided for backward class
under any law for the time being enforced
or under the orders of the State
Government. Sub-clause (c) provides for
enquiry into specified complaints with
respect to deprivation of rights and
safeguards of the backward classes. Both
these sub-clauses provide for class action
in respect of safeguards provided for
backwardness under any law and in
respect of deprivation of their rights. The
investigation and enquiry referred to in
the sub-clauses are not provided to be
made in respect of any complaint relating
to enforcement of the rights of any
individual. The word 'backward classes'
has to be read in the context of the
complaints of deprivation of rights and
safeguards of group of persons. The
Commission can inquire into violation of
their rights, and submit its report to the
State Government, which shall cause the
report to be laid before each house of the
State
Legislature
along
with
a
memorandum explaining action taken or
proposed to be taken and the reasons for
the non-acceptance, if any of any such
recommendation. The powers enumerated
in Section 9 (1) are not to be exercised in
respect of complaints of any individuals
regarding enforcement of their rights. The
deprivation of the rights and safeguards
of backward classes do not include an
individual complaint of enforcement of
any right, and would certainly not include
a recommendation or direction to the
Court
to
give
payment
of
salary,
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
appointment, to lodge first information
report against any person or to punish a
person. It would definitely not include a
direction not to appoint a person as Head
of the Department or a members of any
statutory committee.

38.The
object
and
purpose
of
establishing
the
Backward
Classes
Commission at the Centre and in the State
is to examine the requests for inclusion of
any class of citizens as a backward class
in the lists, and hear complaints of overinclusion or under-inclusion of any
backward class in such lists, and tender
such advice to the Government as it
deems appropriate. The State Act has
extended
the
functions
of
State
Commission to investigate and monitor
all the matters relating to the safeguards
provided for the Backward Classes under
any law or under any order of the State
Government, and to evaluate the working
of such safeguards. Section 9 of the State
Act further provides to enquire into
specific complaints with respect to the
deprivation of rights and safeguards of
the Backward Classes, to participate and
advise on the planning process of socioeconomic development of the Backward
Classes and to evaluate the progress of
their development. The State Commission
is also empowered to present to the State
Government annually upon the working of
those
safeguards.
The
functions
enumerated under sub clauses (f) and (g)
of Section 9 of the State Act include the
powers to make such reports and
recommendations, as to the measures that
should be taken by the State Government
or the effective implementation of those
safeguards and other measures for the
protection, welfare and socio-economic
development of the Backward Classes,
and to discharge such other function in
relation
to
the
protection,
welfare,
development and advancement of the
Backward Classes as may be referred to it
by the State Government.

39.The individuals belonging to
Backward Classes like all other citizens of
the country have the rights, under various
statutes and also under Article 226 and a
fundamental right under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India to raise their
grievances and to seek relief from Courts.

40. When the statute includes an
explicit function, we must follow and
understand that function in the same light
and
purpose.
These
functions
are
restricted to the enumerated functions
with the conditions that the Commission
shall perform all or any of the functions.
The doctrine of 'noscitur a sociis', used to
interpret
statutes
provides that,
an
ambiguous term may be given more
precise content by the neighboring words
with which it is associated, can be used
here to interpret the scope and content of
functions of the Commission under
Section 9 (1) (c). All the functions under
sub Sections (1) (a),(b), and (d) to (g), are
class actions. Section 9 (1) (c) , also talks
of rights and safeguard of backward
classes,
and
not
of
an
individual
belonging
to
backward
class.
The
Commission, in our considered opinion
therefore, does not have power to
investigate, monitor or advise the State
Government in respect of any functions
other than the functions enumerated in
Section 9. Basically the functions of the
Central
Commission
and
State
Commission is to look into the wrong
inclusion
or
non-inclusion
of
any
Backward Class in the Schedule, and such
class action relating to the Backward
Classes,
which
are
necessary
for
1 All] State of U.P. Vs. State Backward Commission U.P. and others
377
protecting their rights given under any
law, for their protection, welfare and
socio-economic
development.
The
individual complaints regarding non
fulfillment of any right guaranteed under
Constitution by any law are required to
be
investigated
and
redressed
in
accordance with the process prescribed
for adjudication by the courts of law and
not by the Commission.

41. The Commission for the purpose
of dealing with the complaints, is not a
Court or Tribunal, to adjudicate such
complaints.
The
powers
of
the
Commission under Section 10 of the Act
or in respect of investigation and enquiry
into a class action, is for the purpose of
recommendation, and not for deciding
any
issue
brought
before
it.
The
Commission has not been established to
substitute the courts of law nor can be
clothed with powers of imposing penalties
and punishment, separated and given to
courts under Article 50 of the Constitution
of India.

42. The service conditions of the
government servants, employees of any
Corporations,
Government
Societies,
Public
Sector
Undertakings,
Local
Bodies, or Universities are governed by
statutory rules, regulations, statutes,
ordinances and government orders. The
State Commission is not empowered and
authorised to direct any action to be taken
against any employee, on the pretext of
oppression, victimization, or protection of
the rights of persons of Backward
Classes. Any such recommendation will
be wholly illegal and will be overreaching
the
jurisdiction
conferred
on
the
Commission. The State Government in
such case will act beyond its executive
powers and duties to recommend action
against individuals.

16. In the aforesaid judgment, it has,
thus,
clearly
been
held
that
the
Commission is not a Court or Tribunal to
adjudicate
individual
complaints.
Incidentally, it is also noticeable that the
aforesaid judgment in the case of Prof.
Banarsi Tripathi (supra) also relates to
service
related
grievances
of
an
individual.

17. So far as instant case is
concerned, a complaint by complainants
was made to the Commission, which is on
record as Annexure No.5 to the writ
petition, perusal of which makes it
explicit
that
grievances
of
the
complainants related to their alleged nonpromotion in lecture's grade and nonpayment of salary to them in the said
grade. Clearly, the grievance/complaint
raised by the complainants was individual
in nature and the same concerned the
matter relating to their service conditions.

18. A perusal of impugned order
dated
13.08.2004,
passed
by
the
Commission reveals that the Commission
not only required the authorities of the
Education Department to submit their
reply but also proceeded to decide the
complaint
as
a
lis
between
the
complainants and authorities of the
Education
Department
and
after
discussing the matter at length has given a
finding to the effect that the complainants
are liable to be promoted in lecturer's
grade and further that they are entitled to
the salary of the said grade. The manner
in which the Commission appears to have
proceeded and recorded its finding leaves
no room of doubt that it not only
entertained
but
even
decided
the
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
individual
dispute
raised
by
the
complainants in respect of their individual
grievances pertaining to their service
conditions.

19. In view of discussions made
above and having regard to the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Prof. Banarsi Tripathi (supra), I
have no hesitation to hold that the order
dated
13.08.2004,
passed
by
the
Commission
is
well
beyond
its
jurisdiction and authority vested in it
under the provisions of Act.

20. This, the writ petition deserves
to be allowed.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued and the impugned order dated
13.08.2004,
passed
by
the
State
Commission for Backward Classes, U.P.
in Case No. 226 of 2000, Sri Ram Sewak
and
others
-versus-
Regional
Joint
Director of Education, Lucknow is hereby
quashed.

22. There will be no order as to cost.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Single No.8005 of 2010

Ramesh Chandra Maurya
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Artcle-226-
Service
Law-period
of
short
time
working
w.e.f.
13.07.1983
to
26.05.1989-on post of Gram Panchayat
Adhikari-whether can be counted for
other consequential service benefits?-
held-'No'-word re-appointment-denotes
'first
regular
appointment
on
26.05.1989-so
short
term
working
followed by termination-can not taken
into consideration.

Held: Para-18

Lastly, the petitioner was given appointment
on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari by an
order dated 09.05.1989 (Annexure No. 6) in
pursuance to the Government Order dated
20.10.1986, even if the words mentioned in
the appointment order are "पुनः िनयु'$
समायो.जत" but the said date (09.05.1989)
shall be the date of his appointment in the
department on the post of Gram Panchayat
Adhikari and that date shall be the starting
point of his career. So, the relief as claimed by
the petitioner for giving benefit of the service
rendered
by
him
w.e.f.
13.07.1983
to
26.05.1989 on the post of Gram Panchayat
Adhikari cannot be granted, as such, the
petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the
law as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Sushil Kumar (Supra)
because the same is not applicable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.

Case Law discussed:
(1986) 3 SCC 325; (2000) 10 SCC 659;
2001(5)SCC358; JT 1993(1) SCC 360

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J)

1. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner, Sri A.N. Trivedi,
learned State counsel and perused the
record.