DEVSHARAN DILLIWAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition the petitioner, who first come on deputation in the establishment of respondent No. 1 from different District Court of the State of Chhattisgarh and later on, absorbed by the respondent No. 1 have sought following substantial relief's:-

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed in the different District Courts of the then State of Madhya Pradesh on different posts. After formation of new State of Chhattisgarh and establishment of new High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, it was felt necessary to fill up the required posts in the establishment of respondent No. 1 within the shortest possible time, but considering the fact that in normal course the recruitment would take a longer time, a decision was taken by the respondent No.1 to take suitable persons on deputation and accordingly, a letter dated 17.01.2001 was issued by the respondent No.1 to all the District Courts of the State to send list of Class-III employees desirous of joining the respondent No. 1 on deputation Pursuant to said letter, the concerned District Establishments forwarded names of the petitioners herein, as they had shown their willingness to serve in the establishment of respondent No. 1 Accordingly, vide orders of Annexure P-7, P-8 and P-9 the petitioner were appointed in the establishment of respondent No. 1 as Assistant Grade-III, the is to say, the grade equivalent to the post on which the petitioners were already working in the District Establishment. The appointment order of the petitioner further states that the petitioners will be on deputation for a period of two years and they were directed to join on 26th February, 2001. In compliance of the appointment order, the petitioner joined their services in the establishment of respondent No. 1 on 26.02.2001 and 05.02.2001, respectively. On 06.11.2003 the respondent No. 1 after extending deputation period of the petitioner from time to time, invited options from all the employees, including the petitioners, appointed on deputation for their absorption in the establishment of respondent No. 1 and the petitioners have consented for the same. Pursuant to the options submitted by the petitioners, vide order dated 28.04.2004 (Annexure P-20) their services were absorbed in the establishment of respondent No. 1 on the post of Assistant Grade-III. After absorption of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 published a provisional gradation list of the Assistant Grade-III on 01.05.2004 inviting objections from the employees. The petitioner finding that in the provisional list of Assistant Grade-III their names have been shown below the employees who were appointed in the establishment of respondent No. 1 much after them i.e. respondents No. 3 to 41 herein. They immediately submitted their objections and prayed for fixation of their seniority from the date of their joining in the establishment of respondent No. 1 and proper placement in the final gradation list in the cadre of Assistant Grade-III, that is to say, above the names of respondent no. 3 herein. However, the respondent No. 1 ignoring the objecting placement of the petitioners in the gradation list, published the final gradation list on 27.12.2004 in which also names of the petitioners have been shown below the names of respondent No. 3 to 41 herein. Aggrieved therewith the petitioners have submitted various representations before the respondent No. 1 but when no favourable response on their representations was received by the petitioners, they filed the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 1 would argue that the petitioners were appointed on deputation for a period of two years and the said period was extended from time to time. Thereafter, vide memo dated 06.11.2003 options were invited from al the employees, who came on deputation, for their absorption and in the said memo it was mode clear to all of them that in case they opt for absorption, their seniority will be counted as per Rule 12 (2) (c) of the Rules of 1961 read with Notification dated 02.04.1998 issued by the General Administration Department. The petitioners herein opted for their absorption and therefore vide order dated 28.04.2004 (Annexure P-20) the petitioners' services were absorbed in the establishment of respondent No. 1 and thereafter final gradation in the establishment of respondent No. 1 and thereafter final gradation list of Assistant Grade-III was published by the respondent No. 1 giving appropriate position to the petitioners i.e. from the date of their absorption. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot take u-turn and challenge their absorption, which they have accepted with the open eyes. He has further submitted that the petitioners were not holding the equivalent post i.e. Assistant Grade-III cadre post, in the District Court establishment on regular basis prior to their appointment on deputation to the respondent No. 1 establishment and therefore they cannot claim seniority from the date of appointment on deputation in the establishment of respondent No. 1 particularly in view of the option submitted by them pursuant to memo dated 06.11.2003.