INDU SHEKHAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 28-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDU SHEKHAR SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973: 
Section 5-A (2)-Respondents, employees of U.P. Jal Nigam, on C 
deputation to the Development Authorities-Options vis-a-vis their absorption 
in the authorized centralized service stipulating condition that their past 
services rendered in U.P. Jal Nigam would not be reckoned for the purpose 
of determination of seniority and they would be placed below the officers 
who had been appointed on regular basis in centralized service after their 
absorption-ca/led for-Respondents resigned from their services from UP. D 
Jal Nigam-Whether benefit of past service available towards reckoning 
seniority-Held, on facts, not entitled to benefit of past services rendered in 
their parent department. 
Respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 4 and the intervener 
herein (now Respondent No. 6) employees ofU.P. Jal Nigam were deputed to E 
Ghaziabad Development Authority on different dates. U.P. Jal Nigam, 
admittedly, is to and has never been a development authority. The employees 
on deputation to the development authorities from U.P. Jal Nigam, therefore, 
could not have been absorbed in the centralized services in terms of Sub-
section (2) of Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and p 
Development Act, 1973. Options were, however, called for from the officers 
ofU.P. Jal Nigam on deputation on various dates by the State ofU.P. By various 
letters, they were asked to communicate their acceptance stating as to whether 
they would like to be absorbed in the authorized centra.lized service subject 
to the conditions specified therein, e.g., their past services rendered in U.P. 
Jal Nigam would not be reckoned for the purpose of determination of seniority G 
and they would be placed below the officers who had been appointed on regular 
basis in centralized service after their absorption. The Respondents, 
admittedly, resigned from their services from U.P. Jal Nigam. No option, 
however, was given to Respondent Nos. 3 and 6. They, however, presumably 
497 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A opted on their own for their absorption in the authorized centralised services 
of the development authorities. The State issued letters of absorption, so far 
as Respondent Nc.s.2 and 3 are concerned on 18.3.1994 and so far as 
Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 (the intervener) are concerned on 6.4.1987. 
Appellants were appointed in various development authorities in the year 1984 
or before. In view of Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities 
B Rules, 1985, the Appellants were placed above Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 
in the seniority list. Questioning the said orders, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 
herein filed a writ petition before the Allah a bad High Court praying inter alia, 
for a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 
to give benefit of past service to the petitioners rendered by them in the parent 
C department. The High court allowed the writ petition holding that (i) refusal 
on the part of the State to grant benefit of past services in U.P. Jal Nigam in 
favour of the Respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of India; (ii) by reason of acceptance of offer to give up their past services, the 
optees did not and could not have waived their fundamental right and, thus, 
acceptance of the conditions for their absorption was not material; (iii) in view 
D of the fact that similar benefits were granted by the court in favour of S/Shri 
Brij Mohan Goel and Sushil Chandra Dwivedi, the Respondents could not have 
been discriminated against. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the Appellants it was contended that (i) the plea of 
E discrimination raised by the Respondents was misconceived as the High Court 
overlooked the fact that no finality has been attained in the cases of Brij Mohan 
Goel and Sushi/ Chandra Dwivedi and the matters are still sub-judice; (ii) so 
far as the case of Sushi! Chandra Dwivedi is concerned, the order impugned 
therein was quashed on the ground that the principle of natural justice had 
not been complied with and thus, the same must be held to be pending decision 
F before the appropriate department; (iii) in the case of Shri D. C. Srivastava, 
the writ petition having wrongly been dismissed as infructuous, this Court, 
by Judgment dated 24.3.2003 in Civil

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.