LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-38

UMAKANT MUDGAL Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On September 27, 2010
UMAKANT MUDGAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who at the relevant time in the year 1998 when this petition was filed was the Mandi Secretary - Grade IV and was posted in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sihora, Jabalpur has filed this writ petition challenging the seniority list published from time to time, granting seniority to respondents 3 to 5, over and above the petitioner. Further challenge is also made to an order-dated 17.7.98, by which the representation of the petitioner for correction of the Seniority List is rejected and orders-dated 19.11.1984, 14.11.1984 and 15.11.1984 - Annexures B, C and D, by which respondents 3 to 5 are appointed as Mandi Secretary Grade IV retrospectively with effect from 10.10.1980. adversely affecting the seniority of the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS in brief, necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as a Mandi Secretary Grade IV, vide order-dated 7.1.1982. Since then till filing of the writ petition, he was holding the said post. In the Gradation List, that was issued by respondent No. 2, showing the position of Mandi Secretaries as on 1.10.86, when respondents 3 to 5 were shown senior to the petitioner and it was indicated that they were having seniority with effect from 10.10.1980, in the cadre of Mandi Secretary. Petitioner made enquiries and it was revealed that petitioner is senior to the said respondents and, therefore, the Seniority List was incorrectly prepared. Petitioner, therefore, submitted representations and when nothing was done and the Seniority List was not corrected, records indicate that writ petitions were filed before this Court, being W.P.Nos.1405/95 and 3010/95. In the said writ petitions directions were issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of all concerned and decide the same. Accordingly, records indicate that respondent No.2 heard all concerned, called for the records and by the impugned action having rejected the representation, petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 1998.

(3.) AS already indicated hereinabove, none has appeared for respondents 3 to 5, but a detailed reply is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. From the reply, filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is seen that the MP Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973 was brought into force with effect from1.6.1973 and between 1.6.1973 and 10.10.1980, when the Rules of 1980 came into force, all the employees except Secretary were in employment of the respective Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities. Each Samiti was a separate body corporate having an independent existence under the law, taut after the Rules of 1980 came into force on 10.10.1980, a separate cadre of Secretary/ASsistant Secretary/Mandi Inspectors were formed and the powers for transfer of these cadre employees to various Mandis were conferred on the Director of the Mandi Board. All the Secretaries became members of the Rajya Vipnan Seva and they were entitled to hold the post of Secretary Grade I to Grade IV, in any Mandi Samiti. It is stated by the respondents in the return that prior to coming into force of Rules of 1980, respondents 3 to 5 and many other similarly situated employees were working in various categories as Accountants/Clerks/Head Clerks/LDC. Each Mandi Samiti had recommended for their promotion to the post of Mandi Secretary Grade IV, but as no decision was taken till the year 1984, a decision was taken in the year 1984 to constitute a Committee, for considering the cases of such employees for their absorption in the Rajya Vipnan Seva and by filing the recommendations of the said Samiti as Annexure R/3. it is the case of respondents 1 and 2 that in accordance to the qualification of the employees, particularly respondents 3 to 5. the Committee had recommended for their absorption in the cadre of Mandi Secretary Grade IV and the benefit of such absorption is granted to them retrospectively with effect from 10.10.1980, on which date the Rules of 1980 came into force. In this regard, the averments made by respondents 1 and 2, in their return in paragraphs 3 and 5 may be taken note of and the relevant portions read as under: