STATE OF U P Vs. RAM PATI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8 October 2013 by which a writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and a direction has been issued to the effect that the respondents would be entitled to at least notional promotion on the post of Commandant from the date on which other persons in a promotion order dated 13 December 2005 had been given promotion.

(2.) For convenience of reference parties shall be referred to by the array of parties in the original court proceedings.

(3.) The two petitioners were promoted as Platoon Commanders on 29 June 1991 and 9 June 1994 respectively. On 14 June 2001, they were promoted as Inspectors, Home Guard Cadre and retired from service on 30 November 2003 and 31 December 2004. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) for promotion to the District Commandant Cadre was held for 2003-04 and 2004-05 under the U.P. Public Service Commission. The DPC for 2003-04 was held on 24 October 2005. The petitioners were found eligible for promotion against the vacancies for 2003-04. On 13 December 2005, the Principal Secretary in the Home Department issued promotional orders for thirteen persons. As against the names of the first and second petitioners, the promotional order indicated that they had retired on 30 November 2003 and 31 December 2004 respectively. The promotional orders were to take effect from the date on which the employees assumed charge of the promotional post. The eligibility list was for 2003-04. On 14 December 2005, promotional orders were issued by the Home Guards Secretariat in which names of the two petitioners were not included since they had retired prior to that date. The petitioners moved a representation which was disposed of on 22 April 2008. The order dated 22 April 2008 relied on a Government Order dated 23 August 1997, according to which, in the case of an employee who had retired, notional promotion would be granted with effect from the date on which a junior had been promoted. In the present case, no junior had been promoted prior to the date of retirement. Hence the representation was rejected.