BACHUBHA RAMSANGJI Vs. J R AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an unarmed Constable in the erstwhile State of Saurashtra in the year 1950. By an order dated 31/05/1957 he was promoted as Head Constable and transferred to Kutch district in the pay-scale of Rs. 55-3-85. It is averred by the petitioner that the Head Constables were not prepared to go to Kutch and therefore the grade of Police Head Constables at Kutch was higher by Rs. 5.00 than the grade at other places. The petitioner opted for Kutch only to get Rs. 5 more in his pay-scale. However for the reasons best known to the Police Department he was not granted that grade. No affidavit to this point has been made by the respondents.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that by the Government Resolution dated 18-4-72 the cadre of Head Constable which was formerly divided into three grades were reconstituted into two grades in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission and automatically became entitled to Grade-II atleast under the new set up. It has been averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had published a seniority list by his Office order dated 10/08/1973 which is produced at Annexure-F. The petitioner is shown at serial No. 9 and the date of his confirmation as Head Constable is shown as 1/10/1959 The fact of the seniority list has not been disputed by the respondents except the following sentence:

(3.) This averment of the District Superintendent of Police Bhuj Respondent No. 1 is incorrect from the face of it because if a person is confirmed as Grade-III Police Head Constable and if Grade-III is abolished he is automatically upgraded to Grade-II Head Constable and there is no necessity of confirmation again because his post is upgraded by Government Resolution dated 18/04/1972 It also appears that there is no material placed before the Court except the statement of the Respondent No. 1 that there is a mistake in the gradation list and if the petitioner has been denied his due promotions and consequential benefits upon the assumption of a mistake which on the face of it is untenable it is unnecessary to go into other points. However in order to put an end to the controversy I will also enter into the merits of the petition briefly.