VIKAS SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Engineer in the Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh. He was promoted on ad-hoc basis on 12/7/2004 as Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, vide order dtd. 31/7/2008, the petitioner along with 15 other Ad-hoc promotees Assistant Engineers were regularized. The petitioner's name appeared at Sr. No.5 in this order. On the same date ie. 31/7/2008, promotion orders for 119 Sub-Engineers were also issued promoting them as Assistant Engineer. These two orders for promotion of two different categories of Engineers on the same date and for the same post has created confusion in fixing seniority for the post of Assistant Engineer. In the year 2003, the Department promoted 34 persons as Assistant Engineers on Ad-hoc basis vide order dtd. 11/8/2003 and these Ad-hoc promoted Assistant Engineers were regularized vide order dtd. 1/3/2007. However all these Assistant Engineers were subsequently promoted as Executive Engineers vide order dtd. 19/9/2008 counting their seniority from the date of Ad- hoc promotion ie 11/8/2003. The Department had issued seniority/gradation list dtd. 29/3/2011 showing the position of Assistant Engineers as on 1/4/2010. In this list, the Assistant Engineers who were promoted during the year 2008 though they were juniors to the petitioner were placed above. Thereafter the petitioner and his other colleagues submitted application/objection for the same before the Department on 15/04/2011, but without redressing the objection, again on 6/7/2013 the Department issued the seniority/gradation list showing the position of Assistant Engineers as on 1/4/2012, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned gradation list is erroneous and has not been prepared according to the order of promotion. The juniors have been placed above the petitioner. The petitioner obtained Ad-hoc promotion during the year 2004, which was duly confirmed by order dtd. 31/7/2008. The services rendered and experience gained by the petitioner on the promotional post cannot be ignored due to mistakes committed by the respondents in preparation of the gradation list. All the Adhoc Assistant Engineers had already submitted application/representation before the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department in this regard, but the same is still pending before the authorities unattended. He further submits that the arbitrary act on the part of respondent authority in denying seniority to the petitioner is in violation of the rules and policy, which literally amounts to punishment for the petitioner which can lower down the moral and efficiency of any employee. The impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner and is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had already been promoted on Ad-hoc basis long back vide order dtd. 12/7/2004 as Assistant Engineer and had been regularized as Assistant Engineer vide order dtd. 31/7/2008. The gradation lists are erroneous, as the same are prepared by jumbling with the sequence of promotion of both the orders. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner as per promotion order. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715.