STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR MOHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal called upon the State to consider promotion of respondent No. 1 to the post of Joint Director along with others as on 15-6-1979 and if is found suitable to give notional promotion to him by creating supernumerary post with all consequential benefits without reverting the persons already promoted.

(2.) Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was employed as Agricultural Inspector on 19-5-1949 and he was promoted to a post in Class II on probation on 13-9-1957. He was confirmed against the said post on 15-6-1966 and was promoted to Class I post on 22-1-1976. He had filed a representation claiming his seniority taking his length of service from the continuous date of his appointment and that representation having been allowed on 30-11-1973 his seniority was re-fixed. Consequent upon refixation of his seniority by order dated 4-9-76 he was granted notional promotion to Class II with effect from 13-9-57 with all consequential benefits. The Departmental Promotion Committee by its report dated 21-4-79 recommended the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion to Class I with retrospective effect from 17-12-1973 on the basis of his seniority below Shri S. S. Saini and above Shri V. P. Sobti. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 15-6-79 to consider the case of promotion to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture) but respondent No. 1's case was not considered as in accordance with the rules and on the basis of his seniority he did not come within the zone of consideration. Challenging the said action respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court claiming the seniority above Shri S. S. Saini. Prior to the aforesaid filing of the Writ Petition by order dated 29-1-1980, the State Government had fixed the seniority of respondent No. 1 below Shri Charanjit Singh and above Dr. L. D. Sharma after due consultation with the State Public Service Commission. Shri V. P. Sobti, who had been directly recruited to Class I in the year 1962 could not be held to be junior to respondent No. 1, even on the basis of re-considered seniority of respondent No. 1. Against this decision of the State Government respondent No. 1 had filed a representation to the State Government. The Government revised its earlier decision by order dated 24-9-80 proposing to fix up the seniority of respondent No. 1 below Shri I. S. Kingra and above Dr. Charanjit Singh. Accordingly the respondent No. 1 amended the Writ Petition earlier filed. The State Government filed its counter-affidavit stating therein that in view of the re-determined seniority of respondent No. 1 there has been a direction for reconsideration of his promotion with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted and pursuant to the said direction respondent No. 1 was granted retrospective promotion to Class II with effect from 13-9-57 and to Class I with effect from 17-12-1973. The gradation list of Class I officers other than Joint Director of Agriculture was finalised on 6-12-1980 wherein respondent No. 1 was shown above Dr. Charanjit Singh and below Shri I. S. Kingra. During the pendency of the Writ Petition Administrative Tribunal having been constituted, the matter was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh. The State Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 6-8-93 having directed the appellant to reconsider the case of promotion of the respondent No. 1 with retrospective effect, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The stand of the appellant in this appeal is that in accordance with the prevalent rules and taking into consideration the revised seniority of respondent No. 1 his case for promotion has been considered when it fell due and as such the impugned direction is unsustainable in law. In this appeal respondent No. 1 alone contested and in the reply affidavit it has been urged that gross injustice has been meted out to the respondent by the State Government, his case for promotion not having been considered at appropriate time and he not having been given his due seniority. It has been further stated that Tribunal having done justice by directing the State to re-consider the case of promotion of respondent No. 1 it could not be proper for this Court to interfere with the said direction in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. It has also been averred in the reply affidavit that respondent No. 1 having been duly appointed to the cadre on 19-5-1949 and other respondents though appointed on different dates to the post outside the cadre in 1949 but were regularised only during 1950. All of them should have been treated junior to respondent No. 1 but unfortunately the State Government treated them senior to respondent No. 1 which ultimately resulted gross injustice throughout his career and promotional avenues were denied to him when it fell due. In this view of the matter the Tribunal has rightly directed for re-consideration of the question of promotion.