AKHOURY DADAN PRASAD Vs. VISHWANATH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgement of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench having upheld the judgment of the Single Judge and having dismissed the appeal, the appellant is before this Court. The sole question for consideration is whether the appellant would be treated senior to Respondent 1 in the cadre of Junior Mechanical Overseer. Initially, the appellant was appointed as Work Charged Mechanical Overseer on 14.3.1967. The services of the appellant were terminated on 1.11.1967 but later on by an order dated 10.2.1968, he was reinstated into service as a fresh entrant. The appellant challenged the said order before the authority and then by an order dated 6.6.1977, the appellant was held to be in service from 1.11.1967 that is the date of the termination and granted continuity of service. On 17.1.1978, the Chief Engineer passed an order granting seniority in the cadre of Junior Mechanical Engineer to the appellant with effect from the date of appointment on 21.7.1967 on the post of Junior Mechanical Engineer in the regular establishment. On 4.12.1978, there is yet another order passed by the Chief Engineer whereunder the appellant was given his seniority in the cadre with effect from 21.7.1967, obviously treating him to be in regular establishment of the cadre.

(2.) Respondent 1 having approached the High Court, the High Court was of the opinion that the seniority has been wrongly determined. It may be stated that the State Government before the High Court took the stand that the appellant must be held to be a regular appointee with effect from 21.7.1967 and if that is the correct position, then Respondent 1 by no stretch of imagination can be held to be senior to the appellant. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The appellant moved the Division Bench in appeal.

(3.) The Division Bench was of the opinion that the initial appointment of the appellant in the regular establishment being contrary to the Rules as the same was passed by the Superintending Engineer, though under law the appointment was to be made by the Chief Engineer, did not grant the relief and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.