PANNALAL SEN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Grade I in the Government College of the State, had filed Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal way back in the year 1991, raising grievance with regard to his placement in the seniority list as also his supersession on account of promotion of juniors vide order dated 05-01-1991. The application remained undecided till the Tribunal itself was abolished upon reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the petition was transferred to this Court. In order:, to decide the controversy involved in this petition, I shall only refer the relevant facts which are as follows.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner raised two issues before this Court. Firstly, that the petitioner was not granted proper seniority, to which, he was entitled under the law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was absorbed in the government services, when the college was taken over on 19-10-1982 and order of absorption in respect of other employees were issued on 11-08-1983. Therefore, the relevant date for grant of seniority ought to be the date, on which, other employees were absorbed in the services of the college i.e. on 11-08-1983. The petitioner's services were illegally terminated on 31-05-1983 which was set aside by the High Court, which led his reinstatement in the year 1985 and order of absorption was passed in the year 1988. The petitioner ought to be given seniority from 11-08-1983, but he was wrongly granted seniority from 10-12-1985 on the ground that the petitioner would not get seniority unless he passes typing examination. According to the petitioner, this was in continuation of services of the petitioner, therefore, irrespective of the date of passing of typing examination, the petitioner ought to be absorbed with effect from 11-08-1983.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners claim for seniority is not correct, because the relevant government statutory rules applicable to the petitioner, clearly provide that a LDC of the Private College shall not be entitled to be absorbed, unless he has passed typing examination, in which, he has been allowed to continue as LDC on the date, college was taken over by the government on 19-10-1982 but only from the date he passes typing examination. In the present case, the petitioner passed typing examination only on 10-12-1985 and it is this date, which has been taken for the purpose of reckoning petitioner's seniority. He submits that initially, the name of the petitioner was not included in the seniority list in the year 1990, but later on, his name was included and gradation list was published subsequently and it was also acted upon by holding review DPC on 22-12-1990.