NEW OKHLA INDUATRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHERversusTHE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - A No. - 66311 of 2015

New Okhla Induatrial Development Authority And
Another                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

The National Commission For Scheduled Castes And
4 Others                                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Ramendra Pratap Singh, Saurabh Sinha
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : , Mithilesh Ch. Tripathi, S.C.

Court No. - 34
                  HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Mithilesh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"(a) call for the records of the case from the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3
abovenamed;

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or such other
writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper,
quashing the proceedings pending before the Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on
the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 4 association i.e. on
the basis of Annexure No. 5, in which proceedings the impugned order dated
16.11.2015 has also been passed;

(c) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari or such other
writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper,
quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2015 which the respondent nos. 1
and 3 has passed in the proceedings initiated and pending before the
Respondent nos. 1 on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 4
association.

(d) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or such other
writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
declaring that repeated summoning of the head or Chief Executive Officer of
the petitioner No. 1 and that too after submission of detailed and reasoned
reply to the complaint/allegation made against the organization is neither
justifiable nor warranted in law."
                                                         WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                2

3. This Court on 8.12.2025 passed the following order :-

"1. Issue notice to respondents No. 1 to 5 returnable within next eight weeks.

2. List after eight weeks.

3. On the matter being taken up today, It has been sought to be contended
on behalf of the petitioners that Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2012 (7) SCC proceeded to strike
down Section 3(7) of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and Rule 8-A of the 2007 Rules
being ultra vires and categorical mandatory directive has been issued that
any promotion that has been given on the dictum of Indra Sawhney and
without the aid and assistance of Section 3(7) and Rule 8-A shall remain
undisturbed.

4. Petitioners submit that thereafter Contempt Petition had been filed for
non-compliance of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court and the
said Contempt Petition (C) No. 214 of 2013 had been entertained and the
Apex Court has taken cognizance of the matter and therein as far as High
Courts are concerned, accepted position is that during the pendency of the
said Contempt Petition in question High Court has been restrained from
entertaining any matter linked with Section 3(7) and 8-A of 2007 Rules.Â
Petitioners are submitting before this Court that in the said Contempt
Petition ultimately State Government has come up with the case that in all
20,807 persons were required to be reverted, but in actuality 15,226
persons have been reverted and other 5,581 persons had not been reverted
because some of them have died or retired or have resigned or dismissed
from the service or allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The Apex Court on
being apprised of such a situation on 13th October, 2015 has proceeded to
pass the following order :

"In pursuance of our earlier order dated 15th September, 2015, the Chief
Secretary of the State of U.P., has filed an affidavit dated 8th October, 2015,
stating that there has been full compliance of the judgment dated 27th April,
2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 and other connected appeal.

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State of
U.P., has drawn our attention to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit.
They read as follows:

"4. That, following the said order dated 15.9.2015 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in the present case, Government Orders dated 16.9.2015 and
22.9.2015 were issued by the Principal Secretary (Karmik) & the Chief
Secretary respectively, directing all concerned government functionaries in
the State to ensure that all reversions are completed in the State within the
                                                          WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                 3

stipulated time frame, in terms of Government Order dated 21.8.2015, which
has already been placed on record in this Hon'ble Court in the affidavit filed
by the deponent on 14.9.2015.

5. That, pursuant to the exercise aforestated, and in full compliance of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.4.2012 in
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others (2012) 7 SCC
1 and following the order passed in the instant Contempt Petition by this
Hon'ble Court from time to time, a total of 15226 (11514+3712) employees
in Groups A, B and C in various departments and organizations of the State
Government, have been reverted.

A copy of the Chart containing the numbers of the reverted employees in
various departments and organizations, along with summary thereof, is filed
herewith as Annexure A-1).

6. That, it is thus manifest from the details of all reversions effected in the
State, as contained in the said chart, that the directions contained in the
judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the U.P. Power Corporation
Ltd. case (supra), have been fully complied with. The entire exercise in this
regard by the State Government has been completed in terms of the said
Government Order dated 21.8.2015.

It is further stated that in the event any employee is aggrieved by an issue
relating to his reversion, or in case of any grievance that a particular
employee ought to have been reverted, following the judgment by this
Hon'ble Court, such representations/complaints are proposed to be decided
on top priority by the State Government."

On a perusal of the Chart, we find that the State Government has identified
20,807 persons, who were required to be reverted, but in actuality 15,226
persons have been reverted. The other 5581 persons have not been reverted
because some of them have died or retired or have resigned or dismissed
from the service or allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. As far as the
death, retirement, dismissal and resignation are concerned, we do not take
that into account. However, in respect of the persons allocated to the State
of Uttarakhand, we do not express any opinion on the same in this
proceeding.

Be it noted, it has been stated in the affidavit that if anyone is grieved by the
order of reversion or in case of any grievance that a person ought to have
been reverted, if raised, shall be decided on top priority by the State
Government. We inquired from Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State
that who would be the competent authority who will decide it, learned
counsel has submitted that he has instructions to state that Principal
Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of U.P., shall decide the same. If
                                                        WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                4

anyone is grieved by the decision taken by the said authority, the said person
is entitled to file an interlocutory application before this Court in the
disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 and connected appeals, so that
suitable order can be passed. The purpose of stating so is that no other
Court shall entertain the challenge to the grievance of any person.

We will be failing in our duty if we do not note another aspect before we
close these contempt petitions. A number of writ petitions have been filed
which have been listed today and they pertain to reversion. They call in
question the validity of the order of reversion. They shall be dealt with
independently when we address the writ petitions.

At this juncture, Mr. Ravi prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State,
has drawn our attention to paragraph 6(f) of the affidavit dated 12th
September, 2015. The said paragraph reads as follows:

"On the vacancies which will be available as a result of aforesaid
reversions, proceedings of promotion shall be conducted as per the amended
seniority list."

The State Government is at liberty to proceed accordingly.

Needless to emphasize, our above said observation for granting liberty to the
State will not be an impediment in adjudication of the writ petitions which
have been filed before this Court.

The contemnors in the contempt petitions are discharged. The contempt
petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. All the applications filed in the
contempt petitions stand disposed of.

W.P. (C) No. 273/2015, W.P. (C) No. 652/2015, W.P. (C) No. 656/2015,
W.P. (C) No. 638/2015, W.P. (C) No. 639/2015, W.P. (C) No. 725/2015,
W.P. (C) No. 726/2015, W.P. (C) No. 727/2015, S.L.P. (C) No. 21918/2015
and S.L.P. (C) No. 24364/2015.

Let these matters be listed along with the record/paper-book of W.P. (C) No.
698 of 2015, on 3rd November, 2015."

5. Thereafter, as the order dated 13.10.2015 was impracticable to be
complied with by a single individual, the said order in question has been
modified on 24th November, 2015 in the following terms :

"Taken on Board.
                                                         WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                5

It has been submitted by Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel
appearing for the State that a paragraph that occurs at page 5 of the order
dated 13.10.2015 requires to be modified. The said paragraph reads as
under :-

"Be it noted, it has been stated in the affidavit that if anyone is grieved by
the order of reversion or in case of any grievance that a person ought to
have been reverted, if raised, shall be decided on top priority by the State
Government.

We inquired from Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State that who
would be the competent authority who will decide it, learned counsel has
submitted that he has instructions to state that Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, State of U.P., shall decide the same. If anyone is
grieved by the decision taken by the said authority, the said person is
entitled to file an interlocutory application before this Court in the disposed
of Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 and connected appeals, so that suitable
order can be passed. The purpose of stating so is that no other court shall
entertain the challenge to the grievance of any person."

It is contended by Mr. Mehrotra that there are around one thousand
representations/grievance petitions and a singular authority is not in a
position to take the decision on the same. It is urged by him that instead of
Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of U.P., it may be
substituted as Principal Secretary/Head of the Department in respect of
employees of the State, and the Managing Director of the Corporations
(Competent Authority/Appointing Authority) who shall decide the petitions
in respect of the employees of the Corporation. The said prayer is accepted.

At this juncture, it is necessary to further add that anyone who shall make a
representation mitigating its grievance, shall be afforded an opportunity of
hearing and the concerned authority, as mentioned herein above, shall
decide the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation. The persons who have not submitted the representation
mitigating their grievance, may submit the petitions/representations within
four weeks hence. Anyone who is grieved by the decision of the competent
authority, will be entitled to file an application in the disposed of Civil
Appeal and other connected appeals, as has been mentioned in the earlier
order.

We may hasten to add that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned
order so that it can be appreciated by this Court.

Needless to emphasise that any representation which has to be decided, has
to be in the light of the principles enshrined in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1. Needless to say, the
                                                         WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                6

competent authority shall be guided by the principles of objectivity while
passing the order.

The order dated 13.10.2015 is modified to the above extent."

6. Petitioners are contending that a perusal of the orders quoted above
would go to show that reversion exercise in all eventuality in reference to an
incumbent who has been promoted with aid and assistance of Section 3(7)
and Rule 8-A of Rules has to be undertaken and in reference to 83 employees
such a decision is required to be undertaken and after the decision had been
taken by the authority concerned, then, such incumbents have been given
authority to approach Apex Court by moving a Civil Misc. Application.

7. The petitioners are contending before this Court that all the
representations that have been sent to them shall be decided in the light of
principles enshrined by the Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. case
(supra). Petitioners' submission is that once a full fledged mechanism has
been determined by the Apex Court that's at the first instance decision in
question on the representations in question has to be taken by the Head of
Department concerned and thereafter, in case, any one is aggrieved,then, his
remedy lies in moving Misc. Application in disposed of civil appeal before
Apex Court and then, there is no other Forum to look into such question. In
the present case, petitioners' submission is that the Association concerned
namely NOIDA SC and ST Karamchari Welfare Association has proceeded
to approach the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi
making complaint on the same subject matter and the most surprising
feature is that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes has proceeded
to intervene in the matter whereas, as a matter of fact, all the
representations regarding demotion/reversion has to be decided at the first
instance by the petitioners and if on said representations decision is taken by
the petitioners, then, at the second instance matter has to go before the Apex
Court.

8. The petitioners submit that they have already appeared before the
Commission and have already communicated the Commission about the
decision of Apex Court and the exercise that is required to be undertaken by
them. It is being sought to be contended before this Court that without any
authority of law in a service matter the National Commission of Scheduled
Castes has proceeded to transgress and overstep its jurisdiction by
mentioning that the Review Committee constituted for the purpose would
decide all the representations related to the demotions and also advised not
to take any further action. The petitioners submit that once entire exercise
has been undertaken in compliance of direction of Apex Court, then,
entertainment of any grievance on the said score by the Commission is not
only impropriety on their part but also transgression and overstepping of
jurisdiction. Prima facie, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for
petitioners appears to have substance and requires adjudication by this
                                                         WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                7

Court.

9. In view of this, the further proceedings before the National Commission
for Scheduled Castes are directed to be kept abeyance till the next date of
listing."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Noida submits that in pursuance to the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceedings for reversion and objection
to the reversion proceedings are being considered as has been been directed
by order dated 13.10.2015 read with 24.11.2015 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
aforesaid issue was being considered in accordance with the mechanism
provided by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the
respondent-Commission has initiated proceedings in respect of matter of
reversion and have passed an order not to take any further action in the
matter and submit a report to the Commission.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3-Commission submits that
respondent no. 4 has sent a representation to the Commission on which
Commission has initiated proceedings. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the respondent-Commission that Commission is not intending to
violate the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the only endeavour of
the Commission was that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court be
complied in letter and spirit. He submits that insofar as direction not to take
further action in the matter may not be proper in the present case as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed the authorities to proceed as per the
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to that extent the order is not
sustainable. However, he submits that so far as calling for report and
direction for finalization of the seniority list and the representation against
the payment of the employees are concerned, the same was made to protect
the interest of the employees who belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes category on the ground that the demotion/reversion of the employees
and the finalization of the seniority list is required to be considered only
after the objection to the reversion order is considered in accordance with the
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. In view of the stand taken by the respondent-Commission, this Court is of
the opinion that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has proceeded to constitute
a forum for consideration of the objections to the reversion then at this stage
it may be proper that proceedings of the Commission are hereby put to an
end. However, in respect of the direction of the Commission for
consideration of the seniority list in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court finds that the aforesaid direction is in the interest
of the employees and the Commission has taken steps to protect the interest
of the employees who belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
category and therefore the aforesaid direction in the impugned order to that
extent, no interference is warranted. However, the Noida Authoritiy would
                                                                                            WRIA No. 66311 of 2015
                                                                    8

                                    be at liberty to proceed to complete the proceedings in compliance of the
                                    order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter finalise the seniority list.

                                    7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    VMA
                                                                                       (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad