K.VENKATASWAMI - (1.) THE appellant, feeling aggrieved by the promotion given to the second respondent herein as Chief Town Planner, Bareilly, as per the order dated 6/7-7-92, moved the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, with a prayer for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash the selection of the second respondent as Chief Town Planner (Mukhya Nagar Niyojak) and also for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his case for the post of Chief Town Planner and to promote him to the said post with consequential benefits.
(2.) SHORT facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 3849/92 before the High Court are the following :- On the coming into force of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the 'Development Authorities' were constituted for the declared development areas. One such Development Authority constituted in September, 1974 was the Lucknow Development Authority. The said Authority had the power to appoint officers and employees for the performance of functions entrusted to it under Section 5(2) of the 1973 Act. A proposal for creation of certain posts in the Planning section of the Lucknow Development Authority was moved for consideration on 3-3-76. Pursuant to that, in the meeting held on 15-10-76, the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority intimated about the creation of posts in the Planning Section inter alia Assistant Architect and Executive Officer (RBO). By a letter of appointment dated 29-12-1976, the appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Architect in the pay scale of 550-1200 which was revised by the Pay Commission to 850-1720 w.e.f. 1-7-79. The appellant joined the service as Assistant Architect on 7-2-77. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis as Executive Officer (RBO) on 7-2-83 in the pay scale of 800-1450, which was subsequently revised as 1250-2050 with effect from a date prior to 7-2-83. However, the appellant was reverted to the original post of Assistant Architect by an order dated 2-4-83. This order of reversion was challenged by the appellant before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1929/83 on 14-4-83. The High Court finally heard and disposed of the Writ Petition on 22-7-87 accepting the case of the appellant and consequently quashing the order of reversion and directing the Authorities to restore the appellant to the post of Executive Officer (RBO) with all consequential benefits. In the meanwhile, the 1973 Act was amended on 22-10-84 by inserting Section 5-A, which enabled the creation of 'Development Authorities Centralised Services'. Later on, the U. P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 were framed under Section 5-A read with Section 55 of 1973 Act. These Rules came into force on and from 25-6-85. According to Rule 3, certain posts in the cadre of service of 'Town Planning and Architectural' were enumerated. For our purpose, the following four posts need a reference :- JUDGEMENT_444_3_1998Html1.htm As contemplated under the Centralised Services Rules, the appellant was absorbed as Assistant Town Planner/Assistant Architect which post the appellant was holding when he was reverted in the pay scale of 850-1720 by an order dated 14-5-87. This order of absorption was passed when the matter was pending before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of only on 22-7-87, as noticed above, allowing the appellant's case. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court was given effect to by the Authorities by making an entry in the Service Book of the appellant on 13-6-1991 to the effect that the appellant stood promoted to the post of Architect w.e.f. 7-2-83 in the pay scale of Rs. 1250-2050. (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) HOWEVER, the Authorities, without noticing the judgment dated 22-7-87 of the Allahabad High Court, gave promotion to the appellant to the post of Town Planner on 29-7-87 in the pay scale of 1250-2050. It must be noted that as per the Allahabad High Court Judgment, which was given effect to subsequently on 13-6-91, the appellant was holding the post of Architect in the pay scale of 1250-2050 w.e.f. 7-2-83. As against the above history of the appellant, let us now look into the service record of the second respondent. The second respondent was appointed as Architect, equivalent to Assistant Town Planner, on 29-10-76 in the pay scale of 850-1720. However, the second respondent was promoted as Senior Architect in the pay scale of 1250-2050 only on 16-5-84, whereas the appellant was promoted as Executive Officer (RBO) in the pay scale of 1250- 2050 w.e.f. 7-2-83, i.e., much earlier to the promotion of the second respondent to the post of Senior Architect in the pay scale of 1250-2050. Further promotion will be to the post of Chief Town Planner. For this, the second respondent was preferred and given appointment on 6-7-1992. Hence, the appellant moved the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, for the relief mentioned above by filing W. P. 3849/92.;