Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136992 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6260 of 2008 Petitioner :- Komal Maurya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.A. Azmi,Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Shivendra Nath Singh,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Upadhyay,Ramesh Chandra Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Sri Dileep Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Arvind Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent states that Sri Arvind Upadhyay has no instruction to appear on behalf of the respondent No.- 5. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that order impugned has come to be passed against petitioner in which prima facie respondent No.- 5 does not come into picture, I do not consider appropriate to hear now respondent No.- 5 by issuing notice afresh. If respondent No.- 5 chose to withdraw his instructions, it will be taken as if he is no more interested in contesting the matter. 4. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th January, 2008, whereby the petitioner has been reverted back from the post of Jeep Driver to the post of Helper. 5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Helper with the respondent establishment in the year 1982 under the order passed in the month of September, 1982, however, later on he was attached to the vacant post of driver in the office under the order passed by the competent authority, namely the Agriculture Engineer Western and Central Zone, Lucknow dated 24th May, 1985. While he continued to discharge his duties as such, recommendation was made by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Headquarters, U.P. Lucknow under the letter dated 23rd January, 1991 to process papers of the petitioner for promotion as a Jeep Driver and consequential order came to be passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture, Headquarters on 9th February, 1991. As a result of the aforesaid, the Joint Director Agriculture, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh accorded promotion to the petitioner as a Jeep Driver vide order dated 7th July, 1998. However, subsequently, it appears, on a third party complaint being made, petitioner's promotion was held to be invalid and accordingly he was reverted to the position of Helper under the order passed by the Additional Director Agriculture (Administration) U.P., Lucknow on 26th December, 2007 and consequential order came to be passed cancelling promotion of the petitioner by the Joint Director Agriculture, Azamgarh Division, Azamgardh on 18th January, 2008. 6. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was duly promoted as per the recommendation made by the Headquarter, Lucknow against 15% quota and there was no illegality in the same and hence without giving any notice to the petitioner, he could not have been reverted to the position of Helper by cancelling the order of promotion. Plea to this effect has come to be taken vide paragraph 22 of the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after this petition was entertained by this Court an interim protection came to be granted to the petitioner on 5th February, 2008 pursuant to which petitioner has continued to discharge his duties as Jeep Driver until he attained the age of superannuation on 28th February, 2022, however, since petitioner's writ petition has remained pending before this Court, he has only been paid provisional pension and other post retirement dues has remained withheld. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the petitioner came to be promoted ultimately as a Truck Driver upon the recommendation made in that behalf by the Deputy Director Agriculture on 23rd January, 1991. The Deputy Director in his letter to the District Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh on 9th February, 1991 stated that since petitioner has been working upon dissolution of Krishi Seva Kendra, he can be adjusted against the vacant post of Truck Driver in his office and there will be no difficulty and illegality in the same and payment of salary shall be done as is being done against the post in question. 10. It is as a sequel to the recommendation so made by the Deputy Director Agriculture, Headquarters, U.P. dated 9th February, 1991 and in compliance thereof and couple with the fact that post of truck driver was not vacant that Assistant Director Agriculture Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh passed an order dated 7th July, 1998 promoting the petitioner by way of adjustment against the post of Jeep Driver in his office. This is how the petitioner came to be continued as a Jeep Driver and was paid salary. It appears also from the records that some third party complaint came to be filed upon which some internal communication had taken place and some order came to be issued by the Director Agriculture, Headquarters at Lucknow and without putting the petitioner to notice the order dated 26th December, 2007 was passed by the Additional Director Agriculture (Administration) U.P. modifying some order dated 3rd September, 2007 and directing for cancellation of irregular promotion of the petitioner. Resultantly, the consequential order came to be passed cancelling the promotion of the petitioner on 18th January, 2008. However, it is not clear that what was the nature of order passed on 3rd September, 2007 which came to be modified or amended by the Additional Director Agriculture Headquarter, U.P. The order impugned is also absolutely silent as to why the petitioner's promotion as Truck Driver or Jeep Driver was bad or illegal or irregular. 11. The counter affidavit is also equally silent about the same. Nothing is stated in the counter affidavit to demonstrate illegality committed in granting promotion to the petitioner and that too when an order came to be passed at the level of Headquarters at Lucknow. Interestingly, paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit states that petitioner was engaged upon the post of Helper and then they failed to understand as to how the petitioner came to be attached in the office of agriculture engineer in the year 1985, on a class IV post of helper. 12. The entire counter affidavit does not state anywhere in any of the paragraphs that the order passed at the level of Headquarter recommending for promotion of the petitioner was forged and fraudulent one or procured by the petitioner or issued upon the representation of the petitioner so as to hold him guilty of misrepresentation or fraud. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner did not possess requisite driving license to drive a vehicle like jeep. 13. Pleadings raised in the writ petition vide paragraph 22 that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner has equally remained undenied vide paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit except for bald denial. In reply to paragraph 22 of the writ petition regarding not affording opportunity of hearing, vide paragraph 17 it has been stated in counter affidavit that the order being illegal and irregular no such opportunity was required. 14. I could have understood that an order to be illegal or irregular provided the order contained any such recital that for a particular reason this order for promotion was bad. Merely stating that the order for promotion is bad, will not ipso facto result in holding it to be illegal and unsustainable. 15. The counter affidavit is absolutely silent also on this aspect of the matter as to why authorities have come to conclude that order of promotion was illegal or bad. In any administrative exercise of power, if an authority proceeds on a premise that fraud or forgery has been committed, then it has to state very fairly in the order impugned so as to deny an employee an opportunity of hearing. 16. It is a settled proposition of law that the only in cases where fraud has been committed at the end of beneficiary no opportunity of hearing was required because opportunity of hearing cannot be placed in a state jacket formula to apply in each and every case. It is true that in setting of facts this principle is attracted and I think this case in hand is one such case where this principle of administration law is attracted. The order being absolutely silent about the illegality committed in the order of promotion, I do not see any justification to pass such order withdrawing promotion without putting the beneficiary to notice. The law is well settled that if the order results in adverse civil consequences, then the principles of natural justice automatically follows to arrest miscarriage of justice. In this case these principles have remained uncomplied with and hence the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. 17. Petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation while working on a promoted post and, therefore, there arises no question now to remand the matter for fresh consideration asking petitioner at least to have an opportunity to explain his position. 18. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18th January, 2008, is hereby quashed, whereby petitioner was reverted to the post of Helper from the post of Jeep Driver. Since the order dated 18th January, 2008 was only a consequential order, the principal order and recommendation made by the higher authority namely, Additional Director Administration U.P., namely respondent No.- 2 dated 26th December, 2007 is also hereby quashed. 19. The petitioner shall be taken to have retired from the post of Jeep Driver and so all consequential benefits shall follow and be paid to him without undue delay. 20. The entire exercise of calculating service dues including post retirement dues shall be done within a maximum period of two months of the date of production of certified copy of this order and any further delay will count for a liability upon respondent for 12% interest upon the dues to be paid to petitioner from the date of expiry of two months period till actual payment is made. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad