RAGHUVIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Projects and Equipment Corporation of India Limited (,,PECIL) in the pay scale of Rs. 310-480 on 25th July 1979. THE Petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Executive Assistant (,,EA)/Junior Accountant (,,JA) in the pay scale of Rs. 430-950 on temporary basis. By an office order dated 18th September 1982 he was regularized in the post of EA.

(2.) FOR promotion to the next higher post of Office Manager, the incumbent should have completed seven years as EA/JA /Stenographer. However, where a candidate, like the Petitioner, belonged to the reserved category, the number of years to be completed in the feeder cadre was five years. In terms of the applicable promotion policy at that point in time, the period of ad hoc/officiating service was also to be counted for the purpose of eligibility for promotion. In the seniority list of EA/JA/Stenographer announced on 27th June 1986, the Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 59 although the date of his initial appointment to the post of EA was 16th February 1981.

(3.) THIS Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Rajiv Dewan, learned counsel for the Petitioner. He placed reliance upon a number of decisions including B.D. Verma v. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 433, R.S. Ajara v. State of Gujarat (1997) 3 SCC 641, Dr. (Capt.) Akhuri Ramesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Bihar (1996) 2 SCC 20, C.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. AIR 1984 SC 1527, and Suraj Bhan v. Union of India 2006 (82) DRJ 180 (DB) to urge that the ad hoc period as EA should count for the purpose of determining the eligibility for promotion as Office Manager. Relying upon the decision in P.N. Premchandra v. State of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 245 it is submitted that the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of administrative lapse of the Respondent in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion as and when it fell due. Mr. Dewan pointed out that Mr. A.K. Gandotra, Mr. H.C. Kapoor and Mr. V.K. Chaudhary were promoted by giving them the benefit of the officiating/ad hoc service. Since none has appeared for the Respondents, this Court has taken note of their stand in the counter affidavit.