Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66778 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Amit Sthalekar Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the
following order dated 21.01.2010 passed in Special Appeal
No. 65 of 2010 (Anjani Kumar Dubey and others Vs. High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others):
“The certified copy of judgement passed by learned single judge filed by
learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record.
We have heard Shri Abhishek Mishra learned counsel for the appellants
and Shri K.R. Sirohi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri S.P. Singh
appearing for respondents no.1 and 2. The respondents have not filed
counter affidavit.
However, the registry has produced the records before us. We have
gone through the records. From the records it transpires that in view of
the interim report submitted by the Committee on 14.9.2009 the
employees of Agra judgeship/ Appellants as well as employees of other
judgeships in the State of U.P. have been ceased to work on class III
and IV posts, who were appointed on ad hoc and daily wage basis and
who have been regularised on vacant posts in view of U.P.
Regularisation on Ad hoc Appointments (on the post outside the
purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules 2001.
The appellants had been working on ad hoc basis by granting tenure
appointments to them and three have been working since 1998, two
from 2000 and two from 2001.
The officers of the registry who were present before us namely Shri
Salim Ahmed Khan, Joint Registrar (Inspection) could not inform us as
to whether the aforesaid Rules, 2001 has been adopted by the High
Court or not.
We direct the respondents to file counter affidavit explaining
1.Whether U.P. Regularisation on Ad hoc Appointments (on the post
outside the purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment)
Rules 2001, have been adopted by the High Court or not. If Rules, 2001
have not been adopted by the High Court then how these Rules would
apply to the District Judgeships, and if these Rules have been adopted
by the High Court then the Rules, 2001 would apply with full force to the
High Court establishment as well as to the District Courts.
2.Whether the Hon’ble Chief Justice had authorised the Committee to
recommend a policy decision with regard to all the class III and IV
employees of Judgeships of entire State of U.P. or the authorisation to
the Committee was with regard to the employees who are working on
ad hoc basis or tenure appointment. If the authorisation by the Chief
Justice was with regard to ad hoc/tenure appointments then the
Committee could not have considered the appointments of employees
working in district courts who had been taken into service on regular
basis though their initial appointment may have been ad hoc or tenure
appointment.
3.The registry shall also explain as to what is the difference between
general letter or High Court circular issued under the Allahabad High
Court Rules and whether letters dated 5.11.2009 and 26.11.2009
issued by the Registrar General are general letter or circular of the High
Court.
4.Whether a policy decision with regard to class III and IV employees of
subordinate courts establishment can be taken by the Chief Justice or
by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Court.
Counter affidavit shall be filed by the registry by 28.1.2010 and records
shall be produced before us.
Put up for further hearing on 28.1.2010 at 2.00 P.M.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, we prima facie find force the
submissions made by the appellants. Prima facie the U.P.
Regularisation on Ad hoc Appointments (on the post outside the
purview of Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules 2001
do not apply to the instant case. If the Rules do not apply then the
report of Committee would fall. Further the services of ad hoc/tenure
appointees could not be terminated after about more than eight years
without any opportunity of hearing. From the letter of Registrar General
dated 5.11.2009 it appears that direction has been issued that Class-III
and Class IV employees who have been regularised, their services also
be terminated and dispensed with. This order dated 5.11.2009 appears
to be arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore,
the appellants are entitled for interim order.
Until further orders of this court, the operation of order dated 4.1.2010
passed by the learned single judge, in civil misc. writ petition no.62910
of 2009, the effect and operation of letter no.LN14763/ Admin. (D)
Section/Allahabad dated 5.11.2009 and clarification letter
no.15968/Admin. (D) Section dated Allahabad : November 26, 2009
issued by Registrar General, High Court Allahabad in the matter of
appointments of ad hoc Class-III and Class -IV employees and further
proceedings before the Committee constituted by the High Court in this
matter shall remain stayed.”
Keeping in view the opinion expressed therein, until further
orders of this Court, the operation of the order dated
26.11.2009 shall remain stayed and the petitioners shall be
permitted to continue on their posts and obtain salary.
Order Date :- 22.1.2010
Akv