STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fact are not much in dispute. The respondent No.1 was made quasi -permanent on the post of Cleaner by order dated 6.7.70. But before that the respondent No.1 was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of motor driver with effect from 11.6.1969. So when he was made quasi -permanent as a Cleaner he was already working on the post of motor driver. The plaintiff -respondent No.1 worked as a motor driver till 3.10.1972. As such according to the plaintiff he worked as driver from 11.6.1969 to 3.10.72, and therefore, he became a quasi -permanent servant on the post of driver because he worked on that post for over 2 years and having become a quasi -permanent employee he is entitled to get all the benefits of a permanent driver. There was no enquiry against the plaintiff and, therefore, he could not be reverted from the quasi -permanent post. He, therefore, claimed the relict; mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) Held: The learned appellate Court has held that although the promotion of the plaintiff was on adhoc basis but it was only till the matter of seniority and posting made not being finalised and the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff has worked for over 3 years on the post of driver and the record shows that he was senior to other cleaners. Therefore, ignoring the seniority and without any fault of the plaintiff he could not be reverted and junior person could not be promoted. Therefore, the order of reversion is against the principles of natural justice and illegal. As such the reversion of the plaintiff to the post of cleaner was arbitrary and against the principles of promoting the senior persons.