L.R.SENAPATI Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner (since deceased) sought the relief of being considered for promotion under an Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. Prayer was made to quash the orders of the respondent dated 11.12.1997 and 18.3.1997 whereby the representations of the petitioner were rejected. Petitioner also claimed an alternative relief of being placed in the scale of Rs.3,000-4,500/- w.e.f 5.1.1995 on account of stagnation by getting the highest bracket of the existing pay scale.

(2.) I heard the counsel for the petitioner in detail for almost one and half hour and at which stage it was pointed out that the petitioner has already expired. This aspect would be very crucial because if the petitioner was alive, I was inclined to giving direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for Assured Career Promotion in terms of the 1994 scheme of the respondent, but which now cannot be done as there are requirements in the scheme of appearing in the test and the interview.

(3.) A reference to the above para shows that the entitlement to promotion to a supernumerary post or a benefit of higher pay scale effectively is granted not automatically on completing eight years of service but additionally by appearing in a test/interview or both which were to be conducted, and which were of 40 marks.