Court No. - 9 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 65 of 2010 Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Dubey And Others Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Petitioner Counsel :- K.N. Mishra,Abhishek Misra Respondent Counsel :- Amit Sthalekar Hon'ble Vijay Manohar Sahai,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
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.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010
vs