Allahabad High Court

RAM RATANversusCOMMISSIONER GORAKHPUR DIVISION GORAKHPUR and OTHERS

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to continuity of service or salary arrears because the appellate order did not grant such continuity and was not challenged, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Ram Ratan, was initially engaged on a temporary basis as a Chaukidar from 1991 and later regularized in 1992, but his appointment was repeatedly treated as temporary. After a 1993 judgment allowed him to continue as a temporary employee, he was terminated on 3 December 1996 following the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. He appealed, and on 6 June 1997 the appellate authority partially allowed his appeal, directing his reappointment but not granting continuity of service. The petitioner subsequently sought a writ directing that his service be treated as continuous from 1 April 1989, with salary arrears and a revised salary. The court held that the appellate order did not confer continuity of service and, having not been challenged, the petitioner could not claim continuity or arrears, leading to dismissal of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service from 1 April 1989 despite the termination between 3 December 1996 and 30 June 1998.
Whether the petitioner can claim salary arrears for the period of termination.
Whether the court can direct re-fixation of the petitioner’s salary based on alleged continuous service.

Subjects

continuity of service
temporary appointment
reappointment
salary arrears
termination of service
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 53282 of 2002

Ram Ratan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur And
Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subhash Chandra, Ashok Khare,
Ramesh Rai, Vikram D. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

(SN.50)

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anup
Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature
commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in
continuous service from the date of initial appointment i.e.
1.4.89 with all consequential benefits thereof and not to treat
the petitioner the period 3.12.96 to 30.6.98 as constituting the
petitioner in the continuity of his service.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suit-able nature
commanding the respondents to disburse to the petitioner the
arrears of his salary from 3.12.96 to 30.6.98 within a period to
be specified by this Hon'ble court.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature
commanding the respondents to refix the salary of the
petitioner after taking into account His continuous service from
1.4.89 and to make payments in accordance therewith
WRIA No. 53282 of 2002
2

including arrears arisen on account of such refixation within a
period to be specified by this Hon'ble court."

3. The briefly stated facts of the case are, the petitioner herein was
initially engaged on 16.12.1991 for a fixed period of 42 days on ad-hoc
basis as Chaukidar in the Nazarat Section by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate. Later, he was further engaged for 145 days in the year 1992
and later on 14.05.1992 for 86 days. On 29.06.1992, the petitioner has
claimed for regularization. Thereafter, on 24.07.1992, the petitioner was
appointed on the regular pay-scale of 750-940 in the office of Tehsildar,
Sadar as Chaukidar and it was made clear that his appointment is purely a
temporary appointment, which can be terminated at any time without any
prior notice. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.08.1992 passed by Tehsildar,
Sadar, Maharajganj, in place of the petitioner, one Sri Chetman Sharma
was appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein challenged the
appointment of Chetman Sharma by filing the Writ Petition No. 33282 of
1992 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 08.07.1993 and it
was held that temporary employee cannot be replaced by another
temporary employee and consequently, the respondents were directed to
permit the petitioner to function as Chaukidar, Peon on temporary basis.

4. Later, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 08.07.1993, the petitioner
was again appointed as Chaukidar, temporarily vide order dated
29.07.1993. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.12.1996, following the due
procedure as provided in U.P. Temporary Government Servant
(Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, the services of the petitioner were
terminated after giving him one-month prior notice. The said order dated
03.12.1996 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur by filing the appeal. The Appellate
Authority vide order dated 06.06.1997, partially allowed the appeal of the
petitioner and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner
reappointment on the vacant post in the Nazarat Section. The said order
dated 06.06.1997 has not yet been challenged by the petitioner in any
other Forum, whereby reappointment was granted to the petitioner.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner herein started making representation
with regard to the payment of salary for the period for which the services
of the petitioner were terminated.
WRIA No. 53282 of 2002
3

5. From the perusal of the appellate order dated 06.06.1997, it is apparent
that appeal of the petitioner was partially allowed and he was directed to
be reappointed in the Nazarat Section as Chaukidar. Therefore, the
continuity of service was apparently not granted by the Appellate
Authority to the petitioner. Consequently, since the said order dated
06.06.1997 has never been challenged by the petitioner herein, he cannot
claim the continuity in service or the payment of salary for the period
during the termination of his services and his reappointment, which has
apparently not allowed by the Appellate Authority. In such view of the
matter, no relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted to the
petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this instant petition is dismissed.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 18, 2026
Shubham Arya

Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…