MADHUMATI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the number of orders by which the gradation list was issued to the petitioner, namely, the order dated 12.11.1997, 19.8.1998, 25.9.1999, 9.11.2000 and 20.10.2000, and lastly the order by which the petitioner is called upon to file an appeal against the rejection of her representation. It is contended by the petitioner that she was initially appointed in the year 1979 in the work charged establishment and was subsequently appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 1.6.1985. The petitioner was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1.4.1993 vide order dated 30.4.1993. A Directorate of Pension and Employees Welfare was started by the State Government. Some persons were needed to be posted in the said directorate. On demand, the petitioner was asked to give her consent for deputation posting in the Directorate of Pension and Employees Welfare. Since such a consent was given by the petitioner, she was posted in the Directorate of Pension and Employees Welfare and was relieved vide letter dated 1.10.1988. In fact, the petitioner never gave consent for her permanent transfer in the Directorate of Pension and Employees Welfare and that is why she was asked to be relieved to be posted on deputation for one year. In the letter of relieving, it was categorically said that the petitioner will get the similar benefits of pay and allowances as she was getting in her parent department. Pursuance to such a letter, the petitioner was relieved on 13.10.1988 and she gave her joining in the Directorate of Pension and Employees Welfare. However, since the lien of the petitioner was not suspended in her parent directorate, the same was to be maintained. When a gradation list was issued in the year 1990, the name of the petitioner was included in the said gradation list at appropriate place at Serial No.2 of the temporary persons because at that time, the confirmation order was not issued. The fact remains that seniority of the petitioner was to be maintained in her parent department.

(2.) Subsequently, the respondents issued a gradation list in the year 1997 showing the position of the employees of the Directorate of Small Savings and State Lotteries and the seniority of the petitioner was disturbed. Instead of showing her at the appropriate place, she was shown junior to many persons who were earlier shown junior to her in the gradation list of 1990. When the petitioner came to know about such a gradation list, she made a representation, but nothing was communicated to her. Instead of correcting the mistake committed, the same mistake was repeated in the year 1998, 1999 and 2000. When the petitioner lastly submitted the representation, it was informed to her that since she has gone to work in the Directorate of Pension and Employees Welfare and since after closure of the said directorate, she came back in the Directorate of Small Savings and State Lotteries and was absorbed from the date of joining in the said directorate, therefore, she will get the seniority only from the date she came back in the directorate. Ultimately, it was also informed to her that in case she is aggrieved by any decision so taken by the Directorate of Small Savings and State Lotteries, she can file an appeal before the State Government. She made the representation to this effect, but nothing was done, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed.

(3.) This Court has entertained, the writ petition, admitted the same on 18.8.2001. The notices were issued to the respondents. It was categorically directed by this Court that any promotion made on the basis of impugned seniority list shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. However, despite grant of opportunities, the return has not been filed by the respondents. When the case was listed on 18.11.2011, this Court directed to list the petition for final hearing. When the matter was listed for final hearing, an attempt was again made to obtain time to file return by the respondents. On 5.1.2012, again the time was allowed for the said purpose, but no return whatsoever has been filed. A prayer is again made for grant of time, but looking to such conduct of the respondents, it is not justified to extend any further opportunities to file the return specially keeping in mind the pendency of the present petition in this Court for a long period of 12 years.