Mohd. Umar v. State Of U.P Through...

S.P Mehrotra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.:— The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, making the following prayers :

“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer Grade-II w.e.f 23-6-1984 and Executive Officer Grade-I/Sahayak Nagar Adhikari w.e.f 17-1-1987 the date from which his juniors have been given promotion with all consequential benefits.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the objection/representation of the petitioner.

(c) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioner.”

2. It appears that the petitioner was working on the post of Tax Superintendent with effect from 16.7.1973 in the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Service.

3. The petitioner made a representation dated 11.2.1996 claiming promotion on the post of Executive Officer Grade-I on the ground that his Juniors had been given such promotions. As the representation of the petitioner was not decided, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10673 of 1996. This Court by its order dated 26.3.1996 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing that the representation dated 11.2.1996 made by the petitioner be disposed of in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 26.3.1996 passed by this Court, the Secretary, Nagar Vikas Anubhag-4, Government of Uttar Pradesh by the Office Memorandum dated 10.1.1997 disposed of the representation made by the petitioner. The said Office Memorandum dated 10.1.1997, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was being given promotion on the post of Executive Officer Grade-I/Assistant Nagar Adhikari (Pay scale Rs. 2200-4000) with effect from 14.3.1990, i.e, the date with effect from which the Junior to the petitioner, namely, Pradeep Narayan Sinha had been given promotion. It was, however, stated in the said Office Memorandum that the promotion of the petitioner was purely ad hoc and temporary, and the petitioner was posted at Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur.

5. Copy of the said Office Memorandum dated 10.1.1997 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition.

6. It further appears that the petitioner again filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35080 of 1999. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner claimed promotion on the post of Executive Officer Grade-II with effect from 23.6.1984 and on the post of Executive Officer Grade-I with effect from 17.1.1987

7. This Court, by its order dated 29.12.1999, disposed of the said Writ Petition directing that the representations dated 12.11.1998 and 4.9.1999 of the petitioner made in this regard be disposed of.

8. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.12.1999 passed by this Court, the representations of the petitioner dated 12.11.1998 and 4.9.1999 were disposed of by the Director, Local Bodies, U.P, Lucknow by the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.1999

9. It was, inter alia, stated in the said Office Memorandum dated 29.12.1999 that the petitioner had not been found fit for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-II with effect from 23.6.1984

10. It was, inter alia, further pointed out in the said Office Memorandum that the petitioner had been regularised by the Office Order dated 21.5.1994, and therefore, the petitioner could be given promotion only with effect from the date of regularisation in view of a decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1105 of 1996, Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P

11. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition.

12. We have heard Sri Matloob Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

13. It is not disputed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the State Public Services Tribunal under the U.P Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 for redressal of his grievances. In this regard, we may refer to the following decisions of the Supreme Court :

(1) State of U.P v. Labh Chand . 1993 2 SCC 495.

(2) Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P v. Sahngoo Ram Arya . 2002 5 SCC 521.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to avail of the remedy available to him under the U.P State Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

15. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner before the State Public Services Tribunal under the U.P Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

16. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition Dismissed.