PREMAKUMARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Payment in the W.P. is for direction to the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 1.8.2002 as against the actual date of promotion given to her on 29.11.2002 and for consequential reliefs, particularly in regard to subsequent promotions and seniority. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as a Copyist on 10.7.1976. She got promoted as UDC on 1.12.1986 and as Head Clerk on 16.11.1999. Promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is from the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector. In the seniority list of UDCs and Revenue Inspectors published on 24.12.2001, petitioner figured as 1501. However, petitioner noticed that four persons junior to her were promoted as Deputy Tahsildars from July to October 2002 i.e. by denying promotion to the petitioner who was higher in rank. When petitioner represented, the mistake was corrected and petitioner was assigned a date of promotion i.e. on 1.8.2002. However, actual promotion to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar was given to the petitioner only on 29.11.2002. The petitioner s case is that if she was treated as promoted with effect from 1.8.2002, she would have become Tahsildar earlier to the date of actual appointment as Tahsildar which is 20.7.2005. The petitioner was later promoted as R.D.O.

(3.) While the case of the petitioner is that she is entitled for notional promotion and seniority as Deputy Tahsildar from the due date i.e. 1.8.2002 for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, Government Pleader submitted that two years actual service is required in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for promotion to the post of Tahsildar. The first DPC that met after petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar was in June 2004 and the next DPC in December 2004. Even if petitioner is given notional promotion with effect from 1.8.2002, petitioner would not have completed two years in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for being considered for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in June 2004. Again when the DPC met in December 2004, petitioner was not considered because by then petitioner had not completed two years of actual service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar. Even if petitioner s prayer is accepted i.e. her service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar is to be considered from the assigned date i.e. 1.8.2002, Government Pleader submitted that on account of leave availed, petitioner s probation was extended till 18.1.2005. In other words, in view of the leave taken by the petitioner, petitioner could not complete two years of actual service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar, Petitioner s case is that if service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar is reckoned from the date i.e. 1.8.2002, even after setting off the period of leave availed, she would have two years service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for being considered for promotion by DPC in December 2004. However, since the Rules do not provide for dispensation of required period of actual service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for promotion to the cadre of Tahsildar, I do not think seniority can be granted based on notional promotion or service. If promotion is given based on notional service, the very object of the Rule insisting on two years actual service in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for promotion to the cadre of Tahsildar will be defeated.