LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-111

B M SODHA Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

Decided On October 05, 2007
B M SODHA Appellant
V/S
CHIEF ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner to have been promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II after he completed 20 years of service in the post of Sub Overseer and grant him all consequential benefits including deemed date of seniority, the arrears and difference in salary etc with admissible allowances.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this petition needs to be narrated in order to appreciate the controversy in this matter:

(3.) Ms Shree Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Ms M.C Thakker for the petitioner has submitted that the benefit which was admissible under policy dated 29.11.66 to the non matriculate sub overseer could have been extended to such sub overseer even after the recruitment rules, 1970 came into force as the non matriculate sub overseer and others who received benefit of policy dated 29.11.66 and the present petitioner were forming one homogeneous class and this class was treated unequally so that there is a clear breach of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was not open for the respondent to treat the employees equally or unequally only because of the advent of the recruitment rules, 1970.