DEEPAK PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was posted as Labour Inspector "on the date of filing of the writ petition" has filed this writ petition challenging the order of promotion dtd. 21/5/2012 of respondent No.3 along with others as also gradation list dtd. 18/5/2012 to the extent of placing name of petitioner below respondent No.3, with following reliefs :-

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition, are that, petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Labour Sub Inspector on 24/12/1983 under Madhya Pradesh Labour Services (Class-III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966 (for short 'Rules of 1966'). Petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis vide order dtd. 30/6/1987 on the post of Labour Inspector. Adhoc promotion was regularized by Department as per recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee dtd. 19/1/1990. After re-organization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, petitioner submitted an application for re-fixation of his seniority based on Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services, General Condition of Service Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules of 1961'). His application was considered and petitioner was placed at Sl.No.17 in the seniority list as on 1/4/2001. Respondent No.3 filed representation against action of respondents No.1 and 2 granting seniority to petitioner considering the period of adhoc promotion, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Subsequently, respondent-Department issued provisional gradation list on 1/4/2011 considering gradation list of Labour Inspector as on 1/4/1999. Petitioner was placed below respondent No.3 in gradation list as on 1/4/2011. He initially raised an objection against provisional gradation list mentioning that other employees of Department i.e. Assistant Director of Industrial Health and Safety, were granted seniority considering the period of their adhoc appointment and thereafter filed writ petition being WPS No.1348 of 2012 challenging the provisional gradation list.

(3.) Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Labour Sub Inspector in the year 1983 under the Rules of 1966. He became eligible for consideration of his promotion on the post of Labour Inspector after completion of three years on the post of Labour Sub Inspector under Rule 6(b) and 14 of the Rules of 1966. According to Rules of 1966, post of Labour Inspector is 100% promotional post, out of which, 67% post is to be filled up from executive and remaining 33% post to be filled up from clerical cadre. Petitioner was promoted on the post of Labour Inspector on adhoc basis on 30/6/1987, he was regularized on the said post on 19/1/1990, therefore, as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 1961, period of service, worked on promoted post on adhoc basis is to be counted for fixation of his seniority. He referred to Rule 12(4)(b) of the Rules of 1961 in support of his contention. It is contended that respondent-Department considered the representation of petitioner filed immediately after re- organization of the State of Madhya Pradesh before competent authority at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The said authority while considering representation, granted seniority from the date of his adhoc promotion i.e. 12/10/1987. The order of fixation of seniority dtd. 21/6/2001 passed by the authority was not challenged or set aside. This was not considered by the authority at the time of directing considering the seniority list as prevailing on 1/4/1999. State Administrative Tribunal considered the issue of period of service on adhoc basis of employees till the date of regularization in T.A. No.1547 of 1988 decided on 30/7/1990. He submits that as the issue was considered by State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh directing consideration of period of adhoc service also for fixing seniority, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for similar benefit. It is also argued that seniority of petitioner was re- fixed in the year 2001 and respondent No.3 has raised an objection of re-fixation of seniority only in the year 2010 i.e. after lapse of 9 years. There is inordinate delay in challenging seniority. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523, L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Others reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287, T. Vijayan and Others v. Divisional Railway Manager and Others reported in (2000) 4 SCC 20 and S. Sumnyan and Others v. Limi Niri and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791. He also places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715 to support his contention that period of working as adhoc employee is to be counted for the purpose of fixing seniority of any employee.