W.P. (C) 16430/2022
VINAYAK SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
The petitioner in the current case sought to direct the Respondents to grant of NOC/ Cadre Clearance in favor of him. Writ petition before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT and HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner had joined CRPF on 27.01.2009 as an Assistant Commandant. The petitioner, while in service applied for the “Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination 2017” conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UP PSC) as per the terms and conditions published in the Official Advertisement No.A-2/E- 1/2017 on 22.02.2017 and sought NOC/Cadre Clearance from the authorities to enable him to appear in the exam on 28.02.2017.
In the meantime, the petitioner received promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant in March, 2017. The aboveapplication seeking NOC was returned by the DIG Range, CRPF, Hyderabad through his letter on 30.03.2017.
After this the petitioner time and again had approached the authorities seeking grant of NOC but to no avail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted to the Court that his client had cleared all the phases of the examination in October, 2019 and was allotted the post of Block Development Officer in UP Government through his appointment letter of 17.06.2020.
Subsequently, the petitioner sought personal hearing of respondent no.2 through his letter of 20.11.2020 and the same was also rejected through DIG (Pers.) Directorate signal on 03.12.2020.
Thereafter the petitioner tendered his resignation on 04.12.2020 which was accepted by the respondents through DIG (Pers.) Dte. General, CRPF, New Delhi Signal on 25.01.2021 and intimated to the petitioner to be SOS with effect from 03.02.2021.
The petitioner through his representation on 06.07.2021 approached the Commissioner, Rural Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh with a request to add his previous service of the CRPF to his current service as per the existing orders/ instructions on the subject and also to carry out his pay fixation. But the same was returned unactioned through a letter on 20.09.2021.
The petitioner being aggrieved, approached CRPF through DDO, Lucknow through a letter on 27.10.2021, seeking to provide his service book. But the same was also refused.
Finally, the petitioner issued legal notice to the respondents on 20.05.2022 to issue NOC, lien on his post in CRPF as well as service book to him. However, the same was also rejected.
The petitioner relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 25.04.2022 in the case of “Alakh Shukla vs. Union of India & Anr.” in Civil Appeal No.3167/2022 (arising out of SLP(C) No.7814/2022). Here
Shukla appeared in the same exam as the petitioner in the current petition i.e. UP PSC. Alakh Shukla was selected as a Naib Tehsildar whereas the petitioner was selected as a Block Development Officer. The apex considering the fact that the appellant was already in service held that a formal clearance permitting the appellant to work as Naib Tahsildar in the UP Government should be issued by the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of the order.
JUDGEMENT
Keeping view of the apex Court judgement, the Court stated that a formal clearance permitting the petitioner to work as Block Development Officer in the UP Government was required to be issued by the competent authority within a period of four weeks.
The Court also accepted the statement of the petitioner that no claims/demands or outstanding would be raised by the petitioner on the respondents for the period for which he has worked.
Thus, the Court disposed the petition in terms of Alakh Shukla judgment dated of 25.04.2022.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
Click here to view your judgement
