NATVARBHAI DOSALJI BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are connected. Facts are as under. The petitioner, common in both the petitions, was appointed as a junior clerk after regular selection in the Settlement Commissioner's officer on 4.12.1969. He passed the Sub Services Departmental Examination in the year 1976. With effect from 1.1.1977, therefore, he was eligible for promotion to the post of senior clerk. It appears that in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, the seniority lists of the different cadres particularly, that of junior clerks was not fully prepared. For a long period of time, therefore, no promotions could be granted to the employees though vacancies in the promotional posts were available and candidates eligible for being considered for such promotions were also available.

(2.) The petitioner was promoted to the post of senior clerk by an order dated 14.3.1990, however, by giving him notional date of promotion of 1.1.1977. In other words, he would be considered senior clerk with effect from 1.1.1977 for all purposes except for the difference in salary till his actual promotion. On 13.11.1995, he was promoted to the post of Shirastdar, once again with effect from 21.6.1984 on notional basis (relatable to the date on which he had passed the necessary departmental examination namely, Land Record Qualifying examination, making him eligible for such promotion). His next promotion from the post of Shirastdar to that of City Survey Superintendent came on 2.12.1996. However, this time around such promotion order did not contain any earlier date for notional promotion. The petitioner therefore, made a representation dated 2.12.1996 and requested for granting promotion from the earlier date. In such representation, he relied on a Government circular dated 1.9.1993 requesting the Settlement Commissioner to grant promotions in his department to the employees from back dates notionally without actual monetary benefits. Such representation was however, rejected by the authorities by an order dated 15.4.1998. In such order, it was conveyed to him that as per the communication of the Revenue department dated 17.2.1998, he was not included in any of the divisions of Land Record department. Therefore, in case of such employees selected through GPSC after considering their internal seniority and looking to the minimum length of qualifying service required for promotion, they were granted promotions in class-III service. No employee was granted deemed date of promotion, therefore, the question of granting him promotion with a deemed date would not arise.

(3.) Despite such rejection of the representation, the petitioner made a fresh representation on 18.6.1998 and reiterated his request for granting deemed date of promotion as City Survey Superintendent. The department did not reply to such representation. The petitioner therefore, made a fresh representation in May 1999 and repeated his request. Such representations remained dormant for a long period of time until by an order dated 16.4.2008, the Settlement Commissioner rejected his request. It was conveyed that he was granted notional promotion with effect from 1.1.1977 as senior clerk and with effect from 21.6.1984 as Shirastdar bearing in mind his qualification and experience. The petitioner's attempt to link his case with one Shri B.H. Patel who was promoted in class-II post of City Survey Superintendent on 10.7.1990 on the premise that Shri B.H. Patel was junior to him was refuted by pointing out that Shri B.H. Patel was actually promoted by an order dated 10.7.1990. In other words, he was not granted any deemed date of promotion or any earlier date of promotion on notional basis.