B M PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Manager Government Central Press Gandhinagar-respondent No. 3/07/1981 by treating the petitioner as senior to one K. H. Raval- respondent No. 4 and to grant deemed date of promotion consequent upon the refixation of seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Compose Foreman and that of Compose Foreman with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Compositor in the service of the respondent-State and posted at Bhavnagar on 14/11/1949 It was on daily wages basis and he was appointed on regular establishment as Compositor with effect from 1/01/1954 From the post of Compositor he was promoted to the post of Assistant Composing Foreman in December 1961 and to the post of Compose Foreman on 3/01/1964 The next promotional post was of Junior Assistant Manager. It is his case that since his seniority was not fixed in accordance with law prejudice was caused to him. According to him he was appointed in November 1949. while respondent No. 4 was appointed in June 1960 and respondent No. 6 was appointed in November 1969 and therefore his seniority was required to be fixed on the basis of length of service and continuous officiation in the original cadre and taking into account the date of appointment his case was required to be considered for promotion to the post of compose foreman compose overseer and higher posts. Since he was treated junior to the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 by wrong fixation of his seniority he was superseded and ignoring his legitimate claim respondent No. 4 was promoted. The said action was illegal contrary to law and require to be corrected by this Court.

(3.) Miss S. M. Thakkar for Mr. P. N. Thakkar submitted that it is not disputed by the respondents that initial entry of the petitioner in the Government Press was in November 1949 whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 6 entered the service subsequent to him. Miss Thakkar further submitted that in the year 1961 the petitioner was transferred and promoted to the post of Assistant Compose Foreman and even then for the purpose of fixing seniority the relevant date of entry in the original cadre was not considered Had that date been taken into account the authorities would not have taken the impugned decision at Annexure C by showing the petitioner junior to respondent Nos. 4 and 6 Miss Thakkar further submitted that the order was passed by the third respondent on 28/05/1980 and in that order also upholding the claim of the petitioner he was shown at Sr. No. 1 vis-a-vis all other persons promoted to the post of Assistant Compose Foreman at the Government Central Press Gandhinagar and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were shown junior to the petitioner. Without issuing notice and without affording opportunity of hearing the impugned order came to be passed on 31/07/1981 disturbing the seniority of the petitioner and showing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as senior to the petitioner which is contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice. She therefore submitted that the petitioner requires to be allowed by granting all consequential benefits prayed for by the petitioner in the petition.