PUSHPA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the Original petitioner, late Raswroop Shrivastava had prayed for correction of the gradation list published on 1.4.1989 and to promote him as Superintendent of Land Records with effect from 11.12.1987 as his juniors were promoted with effect from that date. In addition, there was prayer for grant of all consequential benefits. The facts as have been depicted are that the original petitioner was promoted to the post of S L R on 28.6.1976 and was posted at different places. He continued as such till 10.3.1977. He was promoted to take charge of Naib Tahsildar Keskal, Dist. Bastar. It is putforth that respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Land Records, Gwalior got a gradation list published in respect of ASLR and SLR's as per document No. 3. It is urged in the petition that the persons who were appointed along with him and his juniors were promoted to the post of SLR with effect from 11.12.1987 but the original petitioner was deprived of the aforesaid benefit. It is contended that though the petitioner is senior to the said persons who have been promoted, yet without considering his case in the proper perspective his case has been ignored.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that during the period in question the petitioner was serving as Naib Tahsildar on ad hoc-basis in the district of Bastar. As regards the seniority it is putforth that the Commissioner, Land Records, Gwalior made a recommendation to the State Govt, to carry out the gradation list and subsequently the original petitioner's seniority has been refixed vide Annexure R-l. As far as promotion of the petitioner to the post of SLR is concerned, it is putforth that pursuant to the correction carried out in the gradation list the case of the petitioner was recommended to be considered for promotion with retrospective effect but as the service record was not available his case could not be considered. It is asserted that the steps in regard to reconstructing the service record and considering the case of the petitioner for promotion has been taken vide Annexure R-1. And the case of the petitioner would be considered within a period of four months. It is relevant to state here that the Original Petitioner died in the year 1992 and in his place the legal heirs have been brought on record. I have heard Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the State.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.