GYANESHWAR KIMOTHI Vs. GARHWAL MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 30-4-2003, whereby the respondent No. 2, allegedly a junior to the petitioner, has been given promotional pay scale of Rs. 1,940-2,900 w. e. f. . 20-8- 1996 treating hint senior over the petitioner and two others namely A. K. Bose and D. S. Negi.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that; petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager with respondent No. 1' Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam (hereinafter referred as the Nigam) in the pay scale of Rs. 515-865 vide order dated 16-6-1986. According to the petitioner, the post of the Assistant Manager is senior to that of the post of Catering In-charge, held by the respondent No. 2. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was given promotional pay scale vide order dated 20-8-1996 of Rs. 1,940-2,900, after examining his service records. Respondent No. 2 Rajeev Nautiyal, made a representation on 11-2-2002, seeking promotional pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 from a back date claiming himself to be senior to the petitioner. Alleging that the impugned order was passed by the authorities after hatching conspiracy and under the grab of report of the Secretary Law and L/r, the respondent No. 2 was given promotional pay scale from the back date, treating him senior over the 2 Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer This Software is licensed to: :-REg Copyright Capital Law Infotech petitioner, while the actually he is said to be junior to the petitioner and two others, namely A. K. Bose and D. S. Negi. Challenging the continuance of respondent No. 2 in service, it is alleged that he is continuing in service on the basis of an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 8578 of 1991. Petitioner's case is, that a person (respondent No. 2) who is on artificial oxygen under the interim order; can neither be given senior nor can be given a promotion pay scale in the manner it is done so, by respondent No. 1. Further alleging that the impugned order on the face of it, is wrong, it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 is falsely said to have been drawing pay scale of Rs. 1,025-1,720 in tine year 1980, as Catering In-charge, while actually his pay scale was Rs. 360-550, even in the year 1986.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner Gyaneshwar Kimothi was appointed as Assistant Manager with respondent No. 1 in the pay scale of Rs. 515-865, vide order dated 15th June, 1986. It is also not disputed that the Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer This Software is licensed to: :-REg Copyright Capital Law Infotech respondent No. 2 was appointed as catering In- charge before the petitioner entered in service. But, here the question is of the seniority and the entitlement of the pay scale given to respondent No. 2. Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is appointment letter of the petitioner itself shows that in the year 1986, the pay scale of Assistant Manager was Rs. 515-865 and in that year post of Catering In- charge carried the pay scale of Rs. 360-550. After certain years service, the Catering In-charge was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 440-630, and after further certain years service the Catering In-charge was to get Rs. 540- 705. These pay scales are evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition issued by the Managing Director of the Nigam. As such, even if, the respondent No. 2 entered in service in the year 1980-81, he cannot claim that he was entitled to any pay scale higher to that of the petitioner. Therefore, the stand taken by respondent No. 2 is untenable.