PURSHOTTAMDAS H THAKKAR Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in not conferring all the benefits to the petitioner including the benefits of upper grade selection grade fixation of pay arrears of salary fixation of pension gratuity revised pension etc. being illegal ultra vires and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Talati-cum-Mantri on September 1 1955 One A.G.Shah was appointed to the said post on April 1 1956 and one M.A.Patel was appointed to the said cadre on March 1 1958 Thus the petitioner was senior to both of them. The first provisional seniority list showing the position as on October 1 1961 was published by the Department on June 15 1965 The petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 290. Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 260 while Mr. Patel was shown at Sr. No. 332. It is therefore the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was senior he was wrongly shown as junior in the provisional seniority list of 1965 showing the position of 1961. A final seniority list carne to be published on March 24 1969 showing the position as on November 1 1962 wherein also the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 376 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 232 and Mr. Patel was shown at Sr.No. 440. The petitioner was thus shown senior to Mr. Shah but junior to Mr. Patel illegally. Again a seniority list was published on January 1 1979 showing the position as on January 1 1973 The petitioner was shown at Sr.No. 269 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr.No. 159 and Mr. Patel at Sr.No. 306. Ultimately the final seniority list of Talati-cum-Mantri was published on September 10 1981 showing the position as on July 1 1979 The petitioner was shown at Sr.No. 231 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr.No. 123 and Mr. Patel was shown at Sr.No. 121. It appears that pursuant to the seniority list prepared on January 1 1979 Mr. Shah came to be promoted to the higher post of Circle Inspector on January 1 1982 Since the petitioner was not promoted he made an application on March 10 1985 The Deputy District Development Officer Ahmedabad District Panchayat passed an order dt. December 15 1987 pursuant to the application of the petitioner that looking to he date of entry of the petitioner in service he was required to be placed after serial No. 120 and before Sr.No.121 in the seniority list as on July 1 1979 He accordingly passed an order for placement of the petitioner in the seniority list showing the position of July 1 1979 from Sr.No. 231 to Sr.No. 120 It was ordered that the petitioner was also entitled to other benefits pursuant to the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list of July 1979. Thereafter the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Circle Inspector on July 16 1988 but within less than two months the petitioner retired due to superannuation with effect from August 31 1988 He made representation on September 29 1988 at Annexure.8 to the petition requesting the authorities to grant all benefits to which he was otherwise entitled and an order came to be passed at Annexure. A on September 11 1991 by the first respondent wherein it is stated that it is true that the petitioner was entitled to deemed date considering him as senior to Shri A.G. Shah. It was therefore ordered that his salary is required to be computed on that basis for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was however ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to deemed date for the purpose of pensionary benefits but he would not be entitled to get salary increments gratuity etc. and the salary was required to be fixed notionaly. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

(3.) Mr. R.V. Deshmukh learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to get all benefits including arrears of salary seniority promotion and pensionary benefits. He submitted that the mistake was committed by the respondent-authorities and as per settled principle of law a party cannot take undue advantage of his own wrong. It was the fault on the part of the authorities in not putting the petitioner at proper placement in the seniority list. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner entered Government service in 1955 while Mr. A.G. Shah and Mr. M.A. Patel entered in 1956 and 1958 respectively and yet both of them were shown as senior to the petitioner illegally. Mr. Deshmukh contended that in these circumstances the petitioner was deprived of upper grade which had been granted to other similarly situated persons with effect from 1961. The said decision was taken by the authorities in the year 190 and the petitioner was intimated about this fact in July 1970 Immediately therefore he made an application Annexure. I to the petition on July 19 1970 He submitted that in these circumstances it was expected of the authorities as model employer to grant such benefits to the petitioner to which he was otherwise entitled. Unfortunately the respondent- authorities did not grant those benefits.