SUPERINTENDING AGRICULTURE OFFICER,AMRAVATI Vs. RAMDAS SAMPATRAO PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Amravati in Complaint ULP No. 79 of 1991 ordering promotion of the respondent from the post of Peon to the post of Driver w.e.f. 11.07.1986 by an affirmative relief, the State of Maharashtra preferred this writ petition against the said judgment and order. In support of the writ petition the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jachak argued that the promotion to the post of driver is governed by the Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 published on 14th November, 1980, and conditions for appointment by promotion and in particular 2(a) read with (c)(iv) the condition of not less than three years experience of driving the motor vehicle other than motorcycle is the requirement. According to her, the respondent-complainant did not possess the experience of three years and therefore, was not qualified to claim promotion to the post of Driver from the post of Peon. She then argued that it was the case of the respondent-complainant that he used to work also as a driver because of the instructions of his superior officers in absence of the regular driver. She, however, contended that assuming it to be so, the respondent-complainant was always granted special pay @20% for driving the vehicle in addition to his dues of the substantive post of Peon and therefore, the respondent-complainant could not be conferred promotion to the post of Driver. According to her, the interpretation put up by the learned Member of the Industrial Court for counting three years' experience by taking into consideration the service of 20 years and the work of Driver performed during the said period of 20 years for a period ranging for a few days in one year and also intermittently a few kilometers per year, does not satisfy the requirement of three years experience as a Driver. That is the only point canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in support of the writ petition.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. Harode, learned counsel for the respondent-employee supported the impugned judgment and order and invited my attention to the oral evidence of the respondent-complainant, so also some documents about which there is a reference in the evidence of the respondent-complainant. He argued that no fault could be found out with the interpretation made by the Industrial Court for finding out experience of three years, since in the long tenure of 20 years the respondent-complainant had been driving the jeep of the government, though intermittently and as and when regular driver was not on duty. According to Mr. Harode, if interpretation given by the Industrial Court is not accepted then no Peon can become eligible for promotion to the post of driver thereby making effect of rules for promotion nugatory. He, therefore, submits that the interpretation made by the learned Industrial Court is harmonious and need not be interfered with. Apart from that Mr. Harode has shown me a certificate signed by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer showing that the petitioner has experience from 1976 as driver till December, 1989. He submits that though no document has been exhibited in the Industrial Court the said certificate still should be relied in the light of the oral evidence tendered by the respondent-complainant. Finally he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) I have seen the entire record and evidence of the respondent-complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant rules regarding promotion. The relevant part of the said rules read thus: