N I MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has appeared in this case in person and on the last date, i.e., 9th January 1997, he has completed his submissions and the matter has been adjourned for 18.1.1997 for hearing of the arguments of learned Counsel for the 3 respondent. The petitioner had to undergo surgical operation and as such, he prayed on the last date for exemption of his personal appearance on 18.1.1997, which was granted.

(2.) The petitioner who is an officer of Industries Department of State of Gujarat filed his petition before this Court and questioned therein, the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 11th August, 1987 of the Government of Gujarat under which he was ordered to be prematurely retired. Otherwise also the petitioner would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March, 1989.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into the service of the erstwhile State of Bombay as Malaria Supervisor in 1953. In 1957, he was transferred to Industries Department as Junior Industries Inspector. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Industries Inspector, to Industries Officer, to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Industries and Deputy Commissioner of Industries. The petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of Industries, as what he stated that throughout his career, he was having meritorious service to his credit. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Industries Officer on 6-7-1966, but before he could resume charge of the new post, his promotion was withheld. The petitioner has made a statement in the Special Civil Application that barring communication of adverse remarks in the year 1966-67 and 1967-68, no adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner till 1986. The petitioner filed in the year 1966, Special Civil Application No. 1035 of 1966. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner was superseded by his juniors. This Court has passed the order in favour of the petitioner, but the respondents preferred L.P.A. No. 142 of 1972 which has also been dismissed. The petitioner was directed by this Court to exhaust administrative remedies. The petitioner moved the authorities through number of representations, but as the authorities did not do justice to him, he filed Special Civil Application No. 2457 of 1980 before this Court. In this petition, this Court has passed the order in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to accord deemed date of promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Industries Officer since August, 1966. Further directions were issued to respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Industries, Deputy Commissioner of Industries and Joint Commissioner of Industries taking into consideration his deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Industries Officer as August, 1966. This Court has further directed the respondents to grant all consequential and monetary benefits in the event the petitioner is found suitable for promotion to different promotional posts as aforesaid. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the petitioner has been given deemed date in the cadre of Industries Officer by promoting him from 1st August, 1966, but difference in the salary has not been paid. The petitioner states that he should have been given the deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner since February, 1975 as against his actual promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in September, 1977. Similarly, he stated that promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Industries from May, 1978 should have been given as against the actual promotion to the said post in June, 1981. As the deemed date of promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner and that of Dy. Commissioner has been corrected, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner of Industries on 22-3-1982, the day when an officer, namely Shri H.M. Joshi, junior to the petitioner was promoted. As the directions of this Court given in Special Civil Application No. 2457 of 1980 were not complied with fully, the petitioner has initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents.