AMARLAL BALWANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 27.12.2006, the seniority of the petitioner has been fixed on the post of Research Assistant from the date of his absorption in the Water Resources Department, whereas, he should have been given the benefit of seniority from the initial date of appointment. It is contended that such an order runs contrary to the decree granted by the Civil Court, by which earlier the reversion order of the petitioner was set aside and which order was affirmed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal while deciding the appeal of the respondents-State. It is contended that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Laboratory Technician, but subsequently was made to work on the post of Research Assistant in the erstwhile office of the Chief Technical Examiner. The ad hoc promotion was given to the petitioner on 29.3.1982 and he was continuously holding the said post. However, without there being any justified reason, an order was issued and the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Laboratory Technician, on 18.9.1982 by the Chief Technical Examiner.

(2.) A Civil Suit was filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the said order of reversion and the said Civil Suit was decreed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.17-A/1984 of the Court of III Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal. As a consequence of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the petitioner was to be reinstated on the post of Research Assistant. However, an appeal was preferred by the State Government in the Court of District Judge which appeal was pending upto 2.8.1988 on which date, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, became applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, on account of Constitution of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal and the said appeal was transmitted to the Tribunal where it was registered as T.A.No.4200/1988. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents-State vide its order dated 17.3.1992. As a consequence, an order of reinstatement was issued in respect of petitioner on 21.9.1992. However, in between this, the entire establishment of the Chief Technical Examiner in the Laboratory was transferred to the Water Resources Department and was merged in the said department. The petitioner as a consequence of merger of such establishment came in the folds of the services of the Water Resources Department. Despite making application, the seniority of the petitioner was not fixed on the post, as a result, he was not given the promotion on the post of Assistant Research Officer which was accorded to certain juniors to him vide order dated 22.5.1992. Ultimately, when the representation of the petitioner was referred to the higher authorities, the State Government instead of granting the benefit of regular promotion, granted the benefit of Kramonnati to the petitioner vide order dated 13.3.2003 with effect from 14.8.2002. The ultimate order was issued against the petitioner only on 27.12.2006 fixing the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his absorption in the services of the Water Resources Department and it was intimated to him that since no juniors to him have been promoted, according to such seniority, the claim made by the petitioner for grant of promotion was not to be considered. This being so, the writ petition was required to be filed before this Court.

(3.) By way of filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has controverted such stand of the respondents and has stated that in fact true position was never examined by the respondents. They have not considered the fact that the petitioner was lawfully appointed in the department where initially he was appointed and there was no question of granting him the relaxation in the qualification to be appointed in the Water Resources Department as the petitioner came along with the establishment of his department and absorbed in the Water Resources Department on account of merger of his original department. It is contended that these facts if would have been taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been granted the seniority on the post with effect from the year 1982 and, accordingly, he would have become much senior to those who were promoted in the year 1992. Accordingly, there was every reason to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, but nothing was done by the respondents. On the other hand, on erroneous consideration, his claims were rejected. It is further contended that once the judgment and decree was passed by the Court setting aside the reversion of the petitioner and that judgment and decree was affirmed by the Tribunal, it has attained the finality, inasmuch as, the order passed by the Tribunal was not called in question anywhere in any higher forum by the respondents. That being so, it is contended that still the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.