M VENUGOPALAN Vs. UNION INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was adjourned today to enable the Respondent in terms of the statement by their learned counsel and more particularly in view of the documents filed by the petitioner from Pages 198 onwards to find out as to whether the post of Sanitary supervisor was existing. The Respondents have been unable to show that the said post was not existing.

(2.) A few facts may now be set out. The Petitioner who was in service of the Respondents was promoted as Sanitary inspector on 25-5-1978. It is the case of the petitioner that the next promotional post for a sanitary Inspector is that of Sanitary supervisor. One Shri. S. R. Bhosale holding the said post retired on superannuation on 28- 2-1981. The departmental promotion committee thereafter came to be constituted on 4-5-1981. It is the case of the Petitioner that the post of Sanitary Supervisor is also called as Sanitary Superintendent or Sanitary assistant by Respondent No. 4. On 10-6-1981 promotion order was published by Respondent no. 2 promoting the petitioner to the post of sanitary Supervisor with effect from 1-5-1981. On 6-7-1981 proposal of pay fixation of petitioner in the scale of Rs. 425-640 of sanitary Supervisor was sent by Respondent no. 2 to Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner was holding the post of Sanitary Supervisor with effect from 1-5-1981 and discharging duties of Sanitary Supervisor. Correspondence was exchanged with the department and subsequent to that the pay fixation to the post of Sanitary Supervisor for the Petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved petitioner preferred original Application No. 966 of 1992 before the CAT. That came to be dismissed on 26-9-1997.

(3.) C. A. T. while dismissing the O. A. recorded a finding that there was no sanctioned post of Sanitary Supervisor in existence and that the post of Sanitary Supervisor had been converted to permanent one for the limited purpose of giving pensionary benefits to the previous incumbent after his retirement. The tribunal addressed itself to the question whether in the absence of sanction for the post, whether the tribunal could direct promotion to the applicant before it to the non-existent post. It answered the same against the applicant and for these reasons that O. A. came to be dismissed.