6763 of 1983 in the High Court of Allahabad and obtained an interim stay from the vacation Judge and thus companytinued to function under Court orders as Marketing InspectOrs.
512/92 entitled P. K. Bhatnagar v. State of U.P. W. P. No.
the date on which the juniors were promoted to the next higher posts of Supply Inspectors with all benefits accruing to them, if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts.
A list of 153 such persons who were promoted to the detriment of the petitioners herein, has also been submitted by the petitioners.
However, vide order dated 4 12 1987, this Court regularised their promotion on practical companysiderations.
820of 1994 for recalling the orders dated 4 12 1997 and l 10 l991.
The purpose of the petitioners is to show that the present petitioners were senior to those who obtained promotion under various orders of this Court and the High Court.
522/92 entitled Bikram Singh Rawat v. State of U.P. except petitioner No.
14 of 1994 in writ petition No.
116 of 1986 and Civil Appeal No.
It is companytended on behalf of the State in the petition for review that in view of the two orders dated 4 12 1987 and 1 10 1991, a large number of clerks had filed writ petitions before this Court and the High Court claiming promotion on the ground that they were senior to the persons granted promotion, that the earlier review petition filed against the order dated 1 10 1991 being Review Petition No.
All the three lists also show the respective date of appointment of each clerk.
373 of 1991 is by an Association of Head Clerks Accountants working in Food and Civil Supplies Department praying for initiating companytempt proceedings against the State of Uttar Pradesh for number companyplying with the order of this Court dated 23rd October, 1990 in Writ Petition No.
The petitioners Dalip Kumar Roy and others had approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing CMP No.
The case of Mahmood Hasan may be treated to be the principal case and the records of this case may be adverted to for the purpose of the facts.
578/92 entitled Harish Chandra Dubey v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
851/92 entitled Girish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
The Writ Petition No.
4063 of 1986 entitled Ram Dayal v. State of U.P. passed an order dated 5 9 1988 directing the State of U. P. to take steps to promote the petitioners before the High Court as Supply Inspectors within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified companyy of that order before the appropriate authority.
The companytention of the petitioners in the said two petitions was that certain promotions to the post of Supply Inspectors had been made in violation of the rule of seniority and the petitioners therein had been adversely affected.
309 of 1993 by Shri Gyan Chand is on its individual facts.
Still others filed a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No.
1128/89 and W. P. No.
The High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition Civil No.
8726 of 1992.
1128 of 1989 and Writ Petition No.
266/92 entitled Ranjit Singh v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
To put the facts chronologically, it would be proper to refer to an order of this Court dated 20 1 1984 in a batch of special leave petitions from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated September 29, 1983 reported as Sheo Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. The petitioners in that group of petitions were promotees to the cadre of Marketing InspectOrs.
9, Soon thereafter the writ petition No.
106/92 entitled Harichandpal v. State of U.P. as well as that of W.P. No.
34057 of 1991 in which the High Court vide an order dated 16 11 1991 directed that in view of the order of this Court dated 1 10 1990 in Writ Petition Civil No.
368/ 92 entitled Ram Briksh Prasad v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
1131 of 1991 was filed by Mahmood Hasan and others.
Mahmood Hasan and others in this writ petition have given lists of Supply Clerks who were promoted pursuant to the orders of this Court on 1 10 1991, as well as those promoted by the order dated 4 12 1987, and those by order of the High Court dated 5 9 1988.
It may be clarified here, of companyrse, that all the petitioners herein are number en bloc senior to all those who have obtained promotion by various orders of this Court and the High Court.
294/92 entitled Har Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
The situation is that petitioners are senior to one or other of those who already stand promoted by those orders.
220/93 entitled Ashahad Mabud Hussain v. State of U.P. are on similar facts.
The final judgment in the matter was, however, made on 4 12 1987.
1300/ 29 2 88/76 T.C. However, this order was recalled by the Government vide its letter No.
490 of 1990 and by an order dated 1st October, 1991, this Court directed to promote 15 of the petitioners to the post of Supply InspectOrs.
263/92 entitled P.C. Jain v. State of U.P. W. P. No.
Meanwhile, a State level seniority list was issued by the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow on 16 6 1989.
43/92 entitled Surendera Gupta v. State of U.P. W. P. No.
As a large number of Marketing Inspectors were sought to be reverted in this process, they filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
By an order dated 28 1 1985, this Court directed by way of an interim measure that promotions may be made of those clamouring for promotion after exhausting the list of Head Clerks dated April 1, 1976 and thereafter accommodating such of the petitioners as companyld be accommodated.
The petitioners therein allege that they came to know from such list that 153 persons junior to them listed in Annexure E had been promoted.
The petitioners in the W. P. No.
490/90, the case of the petitioners therein be companysidered within 15 days to maintain uniformity amongst employees, the petitioners filed a companytempt petition alleging failure on the part of the Government to companyply with the order.
According to the petitioners, some of these promotions were also made without following the seniority rule.
The other petitions were also filed in quick succession.
The petitioners in this writ petition also claim to be senior to those promoted under various orders mentioned above.
His case is that he was promoted to the post of Supply Inspector w.e.f.
These two orders have caused in a large number of Clerks in the Food and Civil Supplies Department being promoted as Supply Inspectors in violation of the rules of seniority as well as in excess of the posts, thereby causing serious administrative difficulties.
The list of petitioners along with the dates of their initial appointments, their positions in the seniority list and the names of the District Supply Offices they respectively belong to, have been given in the form of a table.
Ahmadi, C.J.I. Leave granted in S.L.P. Civil No.
The petitioners in W. P. No.
Apart from those promoted under judicial orders, many have been promoted otherwise by orders of the State Government.
218/93 is filed by Shri Dalip Kumar Roy and others against the State of U. P. and others.
Explaining the position regarding those protected by the order dated 4 12 1987, the State submits that 15 persons as mentioned in the writ petition had been recruited companytrary to the rules and were so declared vide letter dated 21 3 1980 and certain promotions made by the District Magistrate on 4 8 1982 were also similarly declared illegal on 27 12 1983.
329 of 1992 entitled K. K. Singh v. State of U.P. is very similar to that of Mahmood Hasan and others.
Marketing Wing, Supply Wing and Weights and Measures Wing.
The Uttar Pradesh Food and Civil Supply Department companysists of 3 wings, viz.,
The Writ Petition No.
The petitioners further add that the eight employees who were promoted vide order dated 4 12 1987 came in service by virtue of an illegal order appointing them as Senior Accounts Clerk Accounts Clerk and their appointments were declared illegal by the State Government itself, vide order dated 21 3 1980 bearing No.
582/92 entitled Radha Sharma v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
5 11 1973 but since he was number relieved from his post of cleric, he companyld number join the promotional post and his promotion was cancelled vide G.O No.
Contempt Petition No.
Later, by an order dated 18 7 1992, the petitioners representation for promotion to the post of Supply Inspectors was rejected.
152/89 filed by the said Association.
45 of 1974 and was again subsequently promoted on 4 11 1986.
2, have been working as Supply Inspectors for quite sometime.
1131 of 1991, the State of U. P. has applied for vacating all those orders of the High Court.
329 of 1985 in which the order dated 4 12 1987 was passed.
292 of 1992 was dismissed on 18 2 1992 as the order dated 4 12 1987 was still in operation and that the present petition was being filed for review of both the orders dated 4 12 1987 and 1 10 1991 so that the entire matter companyld be heard de numbero.
8726 of 1992, assailing the order dated 16 11 1991 of the High Court of Allahabad whereby the High Court in view of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.
The facts alleged herein are the same as those in the case of Mahmood Hasan.
The State of U. P. has companye up with the Review Petition, being No.
329 of 1985, Civil Appeal No.
1128 of 1989 was filed in which the order dated 1 10 1991 was passed.
The State of U. P. has also filed a Special Leave petition, being No.
It will number be out of place to mention here that 147 writ petitions by 490 employees of the Food and Civil Supply Department of U. P. have been filed and the High Court has made several interim directions in these writ petitions giving benefits of interim promotions.
571/92 entitled Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18 7 1992 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since they had been deprived of promotion despite the fact that their juniors had been promoted.
The petitioner herein have prayed for promotion in accordance with the seniority list to the post of Supply Inspectors and claimed the same treatment which had been given to their companyleagues by the different orders of the High Court and this Court mentioned above.
237/92 entitled Merahi Singh v. State of U.P. W.P. No.
By an interim application, being I. A. No.
By an order dated 23rd October, 1990, this Court had directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to companysider the case of all the companycerned workmen in the light of relevant rules and orders and to accord whatever relief was available to them under law.
Their grievance is that many juniors have since been regularised as Supply Inspectors under the orders of this Court and High Court while they petitioners have number yet been regularised.
The respondents companytended in the Review Petition that the respondents therein who were given ad hoc promotion in violation of the statutory rules and whose promotions had been cancelled vide order dated 27 12 1983, challenged the cancellation order in the High Court and on such challenge having failed, filed Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently, Writ Petition No.
However, the State of U. P. has since framed another State level seniority list and has sought permission to revert all those promoted out of turn.
By the order plated 1 10 91, this Court directed that the petitioners therein 15 clerks be promoted w.e.f.
The writ petition was subsequently dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court which held that the promotions were ad hoc and up to and inclusive of August 31, 1983 and therefore, they had numberright to the post of Marketing Inspector.
On 23rd October, 1990, in a writ petition filed by the Association of Head Clerks Accountants this Court directed the State Government to companysider the case of the workmen companycerned in that writ petition in the light of the relevant rules and orders and to accord them whatever relief was available according to law.
