Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Writ Petition No.6599 of 2001(S/S) (Old No. 4836 of 1995) 1. Krishan Lal Kashyap S/o Late Indra Raj Singh, Head Clerk, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dehradun. 2. Abdul Aziz S/o Sheikh Ghasita, Tax Inspector, Nagar Palika Parished, Dehradun. ……….. Petitioners Versus 1. The Director, U.P. Local Bidies, Lucknow. 2. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Dehradun Through its Executive Officer. ……. Respondents. (2) Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2001 (S/S) (Old No. 47534 of 1999) Abdul Aziz S/o Sheikh Ghasita, Tax Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dehradun. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Dirctor, Local Bodies, U.P. Lucknow. 2. Nagar Nigam, Dehrakun through its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari …….. Respondents. (3) Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2001(S/S) (Old No. 47535 of 1999) Kishan Lal Kashyap S/o Sri Indra Raj Singh, R/o 33, Khadri Mohalla, Dehradun. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. Director, Local Bodies, U.P.,Lucknow. 2. Nagar Nigam, Dehradun Through its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari …….. Respondents. Date: March 19, 2008, Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. In all these writ petitions, restoration applications have been filed separately to recall the order dated 26.02.2008 by which the writ petitions were dismissed in non-prosecution by separate order passed in each writ petition. All these applications are within time. The grounds are satisfactory to allow the applications. All these three restoration application Nos.241/2008, 239/2008 & 240/2008 respectively are allowed and the order dated 26.02.2008 in each writ petition is recalled. Writ petitions be restored to their original number. 2. Through writ Petition No.6599 of 2001 the petitioners challenged the reversion orders dated 21.09.1994 and 16.2.1995 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dehradun, contained in Annexure Nos. IV and V respectively. 3. The writ Petition No. 1892/2001 and 1893/2001 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.05.1999, by which the respondent No.1 has directed the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam Dehradun to make the payment on pension to the petitioners by treating them to be the employees who were not the members of the centralized service. 4. The Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Toll Moharrir on 11.07.1980 and petitioner No.2 was appointed on 25.03.1963 as Toll Moharrir. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 was given promotion on the post of Clerk Grade III and petitioner No.2 was given promotion on the post of clerk Grade II on 20.06.1963 and 21.10.1980 respectively. The petitioner No.1 was further given promotion on the post of Head Clerk and petitioner No.2 on the post of Tax Inspector. The promotions of the petitioners were subject to approval of State Government. 5. It is not disputed that the alleged promotion of both the petitioners were subject to approval of respondent No.1. The post of Head Clerk and Tax Inspector are governed by the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules 1966 and the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 the petitioners could not have been promoted on the posts of Head Clerk and Tax Inspector. No promotion could have been made from non-centralised service to centralized services unless the respondent No.1 accorded approval. The record further reveals that the promotion of the petitioners was conditional to the effect in case no approval is accorded by the respondent No.1, they would be reverted back to their original post and they would be liable to pay the differences of the salary to the Board. 6. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the case and all these writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 19.03.2008 P.Singh