REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE Vs. DHARANIDHAR DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O. A. No. 456 of 1990 and O. A. Nos. 131 and 132 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the cases of the opposite party No. 1 -in all the writ petitions afresh. On the basis of the recommendation of the Review D. P. C. , the promotion and/or their seniority/regularisation of their services shall be maintained.

(2.) THE skeletal picture of the facts: emerged in these writ petitions are as follows: The opposite party No. 1 in the above writ petitions had challenged their supersession by their juniors even after the Departmental Promotion Committee found them suitable for the purpose of holding the promotional post. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were suitable to hold the promotional post. Therefore, the applicants who are O. P. No. 1 in the above cases, challenged before the Tribunal about the propriety of the resolution of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Opposite party No. 1- Dharanidhar Dixit in O. J. C. No. 6160/1999 was holding a post of Head Clerk in the Regional Office of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bhubaneswar. A prayer was made by opposite party No. 1 for directing the petitioner to convene a Review D. P. C. to consider his case for regular promotion as Head Clerk w. e. f. 1986 and for fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Head Clerk above opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and for regularisation of his service as Head Clerk from August 12, 1982, when he was given ad hoc promotion in the post of Head Clerk. The Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the respective contention raised before it, held that the opposite party No. 1 was illegally and unlawfully superseded by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as a reason whereof they directed the petitioner to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has filed these cases. It may be stated here mat the parties who are directly affected by such order have not challenged the order of the Tribunal. The opposite party No. 1, Dharanidhar Dixit joined on April 20, 1971 as L. D. C. in the Corporation. It is found that in course of service, he being found suitable, was promoted to the rank of U. D. C. with effect from February 1, 1977. He was confirmed in the post of Upper Division Clerk on and from March 16, 1983 but was given ad hoc promotion to the rank of Head Clerk from August 12, 1982.

(3.) SIMILARLY, the opposite party No. 1, Saroj Kumar Routray in O. J. C. No. 6161 of 1999 joined as L. D. C. in the petitioner-Corporation on January 14, 1972 against a regular vacancy. He was promoted as U. D. C. on ad hoc basis w. e. f. February 1, 1977. His appointment was regularised on and from July 17, 1981. His service as U. D. C. was continuous and uninterrupted from February 1, 1977 till July 17, 1981. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk/assistant on August 25, 1982 on ad hoc basis and has been continuing from that date.