AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI, JJ. - (1.) Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondents State.
(2.) This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2016 whereby writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed denying the benefit of absorption to the appellants on the ground that no such benefit can be claimed by the appellant on account of the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Service Rules, 1991 having been rescinded in the year 2003 namely, the Recession Rules, 2003. Learned standing counsel also informs that the said rules were later on followed by an Act namely the 2009 Recession Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has adopted a two fold line of argument, firstly, that the promulgation of 2003 Rules, does not in any way take away the rights of the appellants that had already accrued to them prior to the coming into force of any such Rules rescinding the benefits of absorptions and secondly, the respondent State had extended the benefit of appointment on absorption to one Shiv Prakash Sharma who was similarly situated but had denied the benefit to the appellants thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) This Court had entertained the appeal and the following order was passed on 07.09.2016 calling upon the respondents State to file an appropriate affidavit particularly with regard to the determination of issue raised on behalf of the appellants vis-a-vis that of absorption of Shiv Prakash Sharma:- "Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and has denied the claim of absorption to the petitioner as a retrenched employee. The petitioner had claimed parity with one Shiv Prakash Sharma about whom reference has been made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 8 of the judgment. This aspect was clearly stated in paragraph-7 of the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record a copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the same does not give any reply denying the status of Shiv Prakash Sharma. The question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits as Shiv Prakash Sharma or not apart from the other issues raised. We have also perused the order dated 14th December, 2006 where the case of Shiv Prakash Sharma was considered by the government and while dealing with the same in paragraph 12(V), it has been stated that since the case of Shiv Prakash Sharma was considered on account of his personal effort, therefore, no parity can be claimed by the appellant, as Sri Sharma was given the benefit of absorption on a different footing. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the same cannot be a reasoning for granting equality in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie, we do not find any denial of the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ petition and in the absence of any denial the respondents are under an obligation to file an affidavit explaining as to why the petitioner should not be extended the same benefit as Shiv Prakash Sharma. Let the respondents file an affidavit to that effect specifically answering the same within three weeks. List thereafter.";