- (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri on 15.6.1987. When District Firozabad was carved out from District Mainpuri on 7.7.1990 the petitioner joined on a permanent basis as Accountant by the order of District Magistrate, Firozabad where he worked till 2000 in the Treasury, Firozabad. On 30.12.2000, the petitioner was attached with the office of Additional Director, Treasury & Pension, Agra Zone, Agra-respondent no. 4.
(2.) ON 27.1.2009, the Pension Directorate, U.P., Lucknow- respondent no. 2 sent a Circular notice to the Chairman of all the State Government Departments inviting applications from interested persons working as Accountants for appointment in different division of Additional Director, Treasury & Pension office. The petitioner applied vide letter dated 13.2.2009. By the office memorandum dated 26.6.2009, the Director Pension Secretariate appointed the petitioner as Accountant in the office of Divisional Additional Director, Treasury & Pension office Agra on transfer basis for a period of two years and the appointment was made temporarily. In the appointment letter, it has also been stated that the lien of service shall be in the parent department and in case there would be no need without any notice he may be sent back to the parent departments and this right would be vested with the Director Pension. The petitioner took the charge in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment letter as an Accountant in the office of Additional Director, Treasury & Pension, Agra Zone, Agra. By the order dated 13.7.2009, the District Magistrate, Firozabad has relieved the petitioner. It appears that on the request of the petitioner, the Director, Pension Secretariate vide its letter dated 24.5.2011 has extended the appointment for three years. It also appears that the petitioner has requested for his absorption in the Pension Secretariate and the same appears to have been forwarded by the Director vide order dated 10.5.2012 to the Joint Secretary (Finance) General Anubhag 3 U.P., Lucknow. By the impugned letter dated 6.8.2012, the District Magistrate, Firozabad wrote a letter to the Director Pension Secretariate stating therein that the petitioner has been relieved for a period of two years and vide letter dated 24.5.2012 the period of transfer has been extended to three years. The period of transfer has been completed. In the said letter, he stated that there is a shortage of employees in the Koshagar and due to the work load on account of promotion or retirement. Therefore, he terminated the transfer of the petitioner and requested for immediate release. In pursuance of the letter dated 6.8.2012, the Director Pension by the letter dated 11.9.2012 has released the petitioner to his parent departments. By the office memorandum dated 29.9.2012 the petitioner has been asked to join within one week from the date of receipt of the letter. By the order dated 4.10.2012, the Additional Director relieved the petitioner in view of the letter of the Director dated 11.9.2012 and the District Magistrate, Firozabad by the office memorandum dated 29.9.2012.
(3.) THE petitioner is challenging the orders dated 6.8.2012, 29.9.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad and the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Director, Pension Directorate Government of U.P., Lucknow and the order dated 4.10.2012 passed by the Additional Director, Treasury & Pension, Agra Zone, Agra. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that by the letter dated 7.9.2012, the Director has cancelled its earlier order dated 24.5.2011 by which the period of transfer has been extended to three years. The copy of the order dated 7.9.2012 has been annexed as C.A.-1. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit challenging the said order being concocted and manipulated and having been passed after filing of the writ petition. It is stated that though in the other letters dispatch numbers are mentioned but in the said order there is no dispatch number. By way of amendment the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by respondent no. 2.;