SAILESH S RAVAL Vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical issue has been raised in both these Special Civil Applications by the petitioners therein, these two matters are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the Special Civil Application No.662 of 1985 and as such 1 have taken the facts from the said petition.

(3.) Both.the petitioners are Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering. The petitioner was appointed as Work-charged Supervisor (Civil) under the Executive Engineer (Ports- Civil), Porbahdar Project Division, with effect from 15.7.1975 under the order dated 17.7.1975, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A to the petition. It was a fixed term appointment, but the petitiioner has stated that the term of the said appointment was extended from time to time. Under the order dated 20.6.1977 (Annexure-B to the Special Civil Application) the petitioner claimed that he has been given regular appointment on the post of Supervisor (Civil). This appointment has been given to him on the regular establishment. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that under the order dated 3.8.1983 he has been selected for regular appointment as Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), the post which has been named as such on redesignation of the post of Supervisor (Civil). In this order it has been mentioned that pay of the candidates working on ad-hoc basis will, htowever, be regularised in terms of the Resolution dated 19.12.1981, referred to therein. The petitioner has made the claim in this Special Civil Application that the respondent-Board should have given the seniority to him in the cadre concerned considering his services to be continous from the date of initial appointment, i.e. 15.7.1975. The respondent-Board has given him seniority by taking his appointment only from the date on which he joined the services in pursuance of the order dated 3.8.1983. The Special Civil Application has been contested by the respondent-Board by filling reply to the same and the contentions raised by the petitioner have been denied.