H P URMALIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as O.A. No.304/1999 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and the same has come on transfer to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) The claim made in the petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Agriculture at Jabalpur on 17.10.1964. He was promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk on 06.09.1975 and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 02.04.1983. Yet another promotion was given to the petitioner on 05.02.1985 when he was promoted on the post of Accountant. Lastly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Auditor vide order dated 16.05.1996. According to the petitioner, his services were governed by the M.P. Subordinate Agricultural (Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 1972 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). According to the petitioner the next promotion channel provided under the Rules from the post of Auditor was on the post of2 Assistant Superintendent/Chief Auditor/Divisional Accountant. Instead of promoting the petitioner on the said post, he again was promoted on the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 06.04.1998 whereas the post of Head Clerk was equated with the post of Auditor in the same pay scale. In fact there was an error committed in promoting the petitioner on the equivalent post and, therefore, rights of the petitioner were prejudicially affected. Since thereafter the promotion was not made in respect of the petitioner whereas certain similarly situated persons were given higher rank, the representation was made and the matter was referred to the State Government and to the Director of Agriculture pointing out such mistake but since nothing was being done, the original application was required to be filed. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner was entitled to promotion on the post of Chief Auditor or Divisional Accountant as was done in respect of certain other persons w.e.f. 06.04.1998 and was further entitled to be considered for next promotion if any junior to the petitioner was promoted in between. The petitioner has also claimed consequential benefits of such promotion. It is stated that now since the petitioner has superannuated from service on 28.02.2005, he will be entitled to monetary benefits only.

(3.) Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner, a return has been filed by the respondents. It is contended by them that the petitioner was rightly promoted on the post in terms of the provisions of the Rules. It is stated that the posts of Assistant Superintendent/Chief Auditor/ Divisional Accountant are the post existing at State level and are not to be equated with the posts, which are sanctioned at Division level. A set up of the posts has been filed and it is contended that in view of the sanctioned strength of the posts, case of the petitioner was rightly considered and he was promoted on the post in appropriate manner. It is contended that since lawful claim of the3 petitioner was timely considered, he was promoted in appropriate manner, the entire petition being based on misconceived facts, is liable to be dismissed. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner but much or less the same averments have been made by him.