Government acceptance during writ proceedings renders the original claim infructuous; non-implementation requires separate proceedings.

The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Provincial Medical and Health Services on an ad hoc basis on 28 August 1990. She claimed that she had been appointed against a substantive vacancy, possessed the requisite qualifications, served continuously, received salary in the regular pay scale, annual increments, transfers and a promotional pay scale.

Her services were regularised under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments on Posts within the Purview of the Public Service Commission Rules, 1979, by order dated 17 March 2004.

The petitioner challenged the reckoning of her seniority only from the date of regularisation and sought seniority from 28 August 1990, promotion from the date on which her juniors were promoted, and consequential service and monetary benefits.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government issued an order dated 23 May 2013 approving the grant of the regular pay scale, arrears and consequential service benefits to the petitioner from the date of her initial ad hoc appointment, on the same basis as certain other Medical Officers.

The petitioner contended that only part of the monetary benefits had been paid and that seniority, promotion and retiral benefits remained outstanding.

The State argued that the writ petition had become infructuous and that any grievance regarding non-implementation of the Government Order constituted a fresh cause of action.

1. Whether the petitioner’s original claim for reckoning seniority and consequential service benefits from the date of her initial ad hoc appointment survived after the State Government issued the order dated 23 May 2013 accepting and granting the claimed benefits?

2. Whether the alleged incomplete implementation of the Government Order dated 23 May 2013 could be adjudicated in the pending writ petition?

The Court applied the principle that where the competent authority grants the substantive relief claimed during the pendency of a writ petition, the original controversy may cease to survive and the petition may be disposed of as infructuous.

The Court also distinguished the original cause of action from a subsequent grievance concerning non-implementation or incomplete implementation of an administrative order; such a grievance may constitute a fresh cause of action requiring separate proceedings.

The petitioner’s claim was based, inter alia, on Dr. Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., (2002) 2 SCC 77, and the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments on Posts within the Purview of the Public Service Commission Rules, 1979, but the Court did not adjudicate the merits of those claims.

The Court noted that the principal relief sought was recognition of seniority and consequential benefits from 28 August 1990.

The Government Order dated 23 May 2013 expressly approved the grant of the regular pay scale, arrears and consequential service benefits from the date of the petitioner’s initial appointment, substantially accepting the claim raised in the writ petition.

Consequently, the Court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether the petitioner was otherwise legally entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment.

The petitioner’s remaining grievance—that the Government Order had not been fully implemented—concerned subsequent facts, including the benefits already paid and those allegedly still due.

Since that question was distinct from the original cause of action and required examination of further records, it could not appropriately be decided in the present proceedings.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of as infructuous, without adjudicating the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to seniority or promotion.

No direction for payment or grant of any specific consequential benefit was issued.

However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law if any benefit admissible under the Government Order remained unpaid or unimplemented.

There was no order as to costs.