Anand Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7341 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶2With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶3Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "ACP") to the petitioners as per the Government order dated 24.03.2015 and to pay arrears of salary after fixation thereof.

¶4At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing Writ-A No. 23338 of 2021 Inre; Anand Kumar and Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors whereby they were aggrieved against the order dated 17.02.2021 by which the respondents had negated the claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP. They had also prayed for a direction for being granted the benefit of the ACP as per the Government order dated 24.03.2015.

¶5This Court vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2023, a copy of which is annexure 19 to the writ petition had quashed the rejection order dated

17.02.2021 and had required the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the discussions made in the judgment and considering the Government order dated 24.03.2015 for grant of ACP.

¶6It is contended that subsequent thereto, the respondents have passed the order impugned dated 12.09.2023 wherein the claim of the petitioners for grant of ACP has again been rejected.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the ground which have been indicated in the order impugned by the respondent no. 2 while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of ACP are verbatim the same as had been indicated in the earlier order dated 17.02.2021 which had been quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2023 and thus submits that there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have primarily copied and pasted the earlier order while considering and rejecting the case of the petitioners.

¶8On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of instructions submits that a detailed order has been passed by the respondent no. 2 while rejecting the claim of the petitioners and as the petitioners were not found entitled for being granted ACP consequently, there claim has been rejected.

¶9As only a short question is involved as to whether the respondent no. 2 has simply reiterated his earlier order dated 17.02.2021 while passing the order impugned in pursuance to the directions issued by the writ Court, the Court does not find it necessary to call for a counter affidavit.

¶10A perusal of the earlier order dated 17.02.2021 that had been passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the claim of the petitioners for grant of ACP was rejected, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the writ petition when compared with the order impugned dated 12.09.2023 would indicate that the impugned order is verbatim what had been passed earlier by the respondent no. 2 and which had been quashed and set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2023.

¶11For the sake of convenience, the operative portion of the order dated

17.02.2021 is reproduced below:- "सममाज कल्यमाण वविभमाग दमारमा अननुदमावनत पमावविधधिक ससंस्थमाओसं मम कमायरत अननुममोवदत पवशि्ቌकक/स्टमाफ कके विकेतन अननुदमान कके भनुगतमान हकेतनु ससंबसंधधित जनपदक कके धजलमा सममाज कल्यमाण अधधिकमाररी कमो बजट आविसंवटत वकयमा जमातमा हहै तथमा धजलमा सममाज कल्यमाण अधधिकमाररी दमारमा अननुदमावनत पवशि्ቌकक/स्टमाफ कमो अन्य औपचमाररक कमा पररी्ቌण कर पबन्धिक दमारमा सत्यमावपत वबल कके आधिमार पर विकेतन कमा भनुगतमान वकयमा जमातमा हहै। यमाचरीगण एविसं अन्य कमावमरक पपूणरतयमा पबसंधितसं्ቔ कके वनयसं्ቔणमाधिरीन हमोतके हहै तथमा वनयनुवሹኌ भरी पबन्धितसं्ቔ दमारमा ककी जमातरी हह। सनुवनशशचत कहैररयर पमोन्यन (ए०सरी०परी०) कमा लमाभ अननुमन्य करमायके जमानके कमा सममाज कल्यमाण वविभमाग दमारमा अननुदमान पर ससंचमाधलत ऐसरी ससंस्थमाओसं मम कमायरत कमावमरकक कके सम्बन्धि मम शिमासन दमारमा समय-समय पर वनगरत - शिमासनमादकेशिक मम कमोई पमावविधिमान / नरीवत व्यविस्थमा न हमोनके कके कमारण यमाचरीगण कमो सनुवनशशचत ककॅररयर पमो्ቐयन (,०सरी०परी०) लमाभ अननुमन्य करमायके जमानके कमा कमोई औवचत्य नहीሻ हहै तथमा विवणरत शस्थवत मम यमाचरी कमा दमाविमा | बलहरीन हमोनके कके कमारण पमोषणरीय नहीሻ हहै।"

¶12Likewise, the operative portion of the order impugned dated 12.09.2023 is reproduced below:- "सममाज कल्यमाण वविभमाग दमारमा अननुदमावनत पमावविधधिक ससंस्थमाओसं मम कमायरत अननुममोवदत पवशि्ቌकक/स्टमाफ कके विकेतन अननुदमान कके भनुगतमान हकेतनु ससंबसंधधित जनपदक कके धजलमा सममाज कल्यमाण अधधिकमाररी कमो बजट आविसंवटत वकयमा जमातमा हहै तथमा धजलमा सममाज कल्यमाण अधधिकमाररी दमारमा अननुदमावनत पवशि्ቌकक /स्टमाफ कमो अन्य औपचमाररक कमा पररी्ቌण कर पबन्धिक दमारमा सत्यमावपत वबल कके आधिमार पर विकेतन कमा भनुगतमान वकयमा जमातमा हहै। यमाचरीगण एविसं अन्य कमावमरक पपूणरतयमा पबसंधितसं्ቔ कके वनयसं्ቔणमाधिरीन हमोतके हहै तथमा वनयनुवሹኌ भरी पबन्धितसं्ቔ दमारमा ककी जमातरी हह। सनुवनशशचत कहैररयर पमोन्यन (ए०सरी०परी०) कमा लमाभ अननुमन्य करमायके जमानके कमा सममाज कल्यमाण वविभमाग दमारमा अननुदमान पर ससंचमाधलत ऐसरी ससंस्थमाओसं मम कमायरत कमावमरकक कके सम्बन्धि मम शिमासन दमारमा समय-समय पर वनगरत - शिमासनमादकेशिक मम कमोई पमावविधिमान / नरीवत व्यविस्थमा न हमोनके कके कमारण यमाचरीगण कमो सनुवनशशचत ककॅररयर पमो्ቐयन (,०सरी०परी०) लमाभ अननुमन्य करमायके जमानके कमा कमोई औवचत्य नहीሻ हहै तथमा विवणरत शस्थवत मम यमाचरी कमा दमाविमा | बलहरीन हमोनके कके कमारण पमोषणरीय नहीሻ हहै।"

¶13Perusal of both the aforesaid orders would indicate that there is no difference between what had been indicated by the respondent no. 2 while passing the order dated 17.02.2021 viz-a-viz the order which has been passed now dated

12.09.2023.

¶14Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that exemplary cost should be imposed upon the respondent no. 2 who has passed the order impugned.

¶15However, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel states that atleast an opportunity may be granted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order keeping in view the earlier order of this Court dated 13.07.2023.

¶16Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass a fresh order regarding the claim of the petitioner for grant of the ACP keeping in view the discussion made in the judgment and order dated 13.07.2023.

¶17Let such an order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 11.10.2023 Pachhere/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench