- (1.) Heard Learned standing counsel appearing for petitioners and Shri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, the respondent no. 2 herein referred to as the Tribunal is a proforma party in the writ petition as the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of its orders dated 23.10.2006 in claim petition no. 1094 of 1998, Sudarshan Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others and dated 18.8.2006 in review application therein (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition) respectively passed by the represent no.2. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has directed the petitioners to consider the claim of Sudarshan Singh for promotion with effect from the date his juniors Shri Banke Lal Maheshwari and others had been promoted. The Tribunal has further directed that claimant-Sudarshan Singh would also be entitled for all service benefits which have been made to Shri Bake Lal Maheshwari under the rules, the judgement/ order of the Tribunal was to be complied within three months from the date of its receipt by the State.
(2.) The facts culled out from records are that one Bake Lal Maheshwari was respondent in the claim petition no. 1094 of 1998 before the State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow (he has not been arrayed a party in the writ petition as this petition has been filed by the State taking up his cause) Shri Banke Lal Maheshwari was initially appointed as Accountant on adhoc basis in the department with effect form 17.11.1978 whereas Shri Sudarshan Singh claimed before the Triubnal and arayed in the present in the writ petition was initially appointed on adhoc basis with effect from 15.2.1980. Certain disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against Shri Banke Lal Maheshwari. Therefore, he could only be regularised on 6.12.1990 whereas Shri Sudarshan Singh respondent no.1 had been regularised in service on 3.10.1986. However, the department promoted Shri Banke Lal Maheshwari and others eligible candidates on the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 14.9.1976 vide order dated 9.5.1997.
(3.) A claim petition no. no. 167/2/84, Shiv Saran Lal Srivstava Vs. State appears to have been filed, in which an objection was raised to the aforesaid petition interalia that Sri Hausala Prasad Upadhyay and Jagdambika Prasad were not eligible to be promoted to the post of Accounts Officer. Claim petition no. 1094 of 1998 was field by Sudashan Singh claiming that the petitioner was not considered for the promotion although his name figures in the tentative seniority list at Sl. No. 67 and that in final seniority list circulated the claimant Sudarshan Singh was placed at Sl. No. 27. It was also alleged that the name of Hausala Prasad had not been shown in the final seniority list yet they have been promoted on the post of Accounts Officer. Not only this Ram Bahadur Singh had been promoted on the post of Accounts Officer vide order dated 9.5.1997 and Banke Lal Maheshwari whose name at Sl No. 25 has also been promoted to the post of Accounts Officer ignoring the claim of the claimant Sudarshan Singh. It was alleged that the representation of the petitioner in this regard had also not been considered.;