BISWANATH BAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner abovenamed joined the Administration as an Extension Officer on October 27, 1989. Since then there had been protracted litigations on the issue of preparation of seniority list. Since litigations were pending, the authority gave him promotion on ad hoc basis as a Block Development Officer with effect from August 14, 1995. It appears that his initial appointment as Block Development Officer was in leave vacancy. Ultimately on May 23, 2007 his promotion was regularized with effect from April 30, 2007. The promotion to the next post requires six years' experience in the feeder post. Ms. Ganguly however contended that it required three years qualifying service in the feeder post. Petitioner's grievance is that although he worked in the post of Block Development Officer since 1995 after being promoted from the post of Extension Officer he was not considered for further promotion as his past service in the post of Block Development Officer for the period 1995 -2007 was not being considered by the authority. He claims that his promotion should be regularized at least with effect from January 14, 1999 when he was considered by the Selection Committee who recommended him for the said post subject to finalization of the seniority list.

(2.) HE approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that his promotion as a Block Development Officer with effect from January 14, 1999 was on ad hoc basis. Such period could not be counted for qualifying service being contrary to the Service Rules. The Tribunal held that the decision in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. v. Union of India and others, : 2000 (8) SCC 25 relied on by the applicant had no application in the instant case. The Tribunal considered the dictionary meaning of the word "ad hoc" and came to conclusion that it was not a regular promotion. The application was dismissed.

(3.) MS . Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing in support of the application contended that the writ Petitioner was promoted in the post of Block Development Officer on ad hoc basis in leave vacancy in 1995. However, his case was formally considered by the selection committee in 1999 when he was recommended for promotion on regular basis. In view of the litigations with regard to the preparation of seniority list the authority was not in a position to implement such recommendation, and for that the Petitioner should not suffer. She contended that the Petitioner was otherwise entitled to regular promotion with effect from January, 1999. Hence, his promotion ultimately regularized with effect from May 14, 2007 should be altered by giving it retrospective effect on and from January 14, 1999. She prayed for alteration of the seniority list accordingly and as a consequence the Petitioner should be considered as qualified for the next promotion having more than nine years' working experience in the feeder post.