SANJAY PATHAK Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 17/12/2015 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition (S) No.6479 of 2014 filed by the Writ Petitioner D.S. Dandotia (Respondent No.6 herein) was allowed and it was held that a review DPC be held to consider the case of the Petitioner for proforma promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 13/1/2006 when his juniors were promoted.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the Writ Petitioner D.S. Dandotia (Respondent No.6 herein) joined service in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Chhattisgarh was carved out in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 with effect from 1/11/2000. The services of the the Writ Petitioner D.S. Dandotia (Respondent No.6 herein) were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. He, however, did not join in the State of Chhattisgarh and filed an Original Application No.1237 of 2002 before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal challenging his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh. In this original application, he applied for grant of interim relief and relief was granted to him that he would continue to serve in the State of Madhya Pradesh till further orders. The Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal was abolished and on its abolition this original application was transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. It appears that a Lok-Adalat was conducted in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench and during this Lok-Adalat a settlement was arrived at that the matter be disposed of in the terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.2156 of 2003. The Writ Petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the Government of India within 30 days and the Petitioner along with other similarly situated employees was permitted to continue in his original State, i.e., State of Madhya Pradesh till decision on his representation is taken. The Petitioner admittedly continued to serve in the State of Madhya Pradesh. His representation to the Central Government was rejected on 5/7/2006 and the Petitioner was relieved from the State of Madhya Pradesh by order dtd. 17/7/2007. He was actually relieved on 6/8/2007. He joined in the State of Chhattisgarh on 13/8/2007.

(3.) In the meantime, on 13/1/2006, some employees, who were admittedly much junior to the Petitioner, were promoted as Assistant Engineers in the State of Chhattisgarh. On 29/9/2010, the Petitioner was also promoted as Assistant Engineer in the State of Chhattisgarh. It was only thereafter that he made a representation that he should be promoted with effect from 13/1/2006, the date when his juniors were promoted. This representation was rejected on the ground that since the Petitioner had not joined the State of Chhattisgarh prior to 13/1/2006, he could not be promoted in the State of Chhattisgarh prior to the said date. Aggrieved by the said action, the Petitioner D.S. Dandotia (Respondent No.6 herein) filed the writ petition, which has been allowed. Now, one of the private Respondents, whose seniority is affected, has challenged the order of the Learned Single Judge.