SMTI KALYANI DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a prayer has been made for a direction to hold the petitioner senior to the respondent Nos 3 and 4 and for application of the 'Next below Rule' providing promotion to the petitioner as Upper Division Assistant from the date of such promotion to the respondent No.3.

(2.) Shortly, stated the facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are that on 9.10.85, the petitioner was appointed as Copyist on a monthly remuneration of Rs.400. The Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 regulating the service conditions of the employees of the said establishment was promulgated on 26.10.1987. According to the petitioner, the District and Sessions Judge, Goalpara, prepared a Select List out of existing Copyists of his establishment by following the Rules of 1987 relating to the promotion of existing Copyists to the post of Lower Division Assistant. The said Select List was prepared on 14.3.1988. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed on promotion as Lower Division Assistant by an order dated 18.3.1988. Thus, according to the petitioner the selection made in respect of her appointment was by way of promotion and the appointment pursuant thereto made on 18.3.1988 was also by way of promotion. Referring to a decision of this Court dated 12.4.1988 passed in Civil Rule No.444 of 1987 the Copyists were held to be entitled to time scale of pay and other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from 8.5.1987. The writ petitioner has asserted that since the Govt of Assam, in the Finance Department issued the office memorandum dated 15.7.1988. providing the pay scale of Rs.470-800 to the existing Copyists with effect form 8.5.1987, which is the scale prescribed for LDA, the petitioner should be treated at par with the LDA. It is on that basis, the petitioner claims that her service as Copyist from 1985 is required to be counted towards the seniority in the cadre of LDA.

(3.) The further grievance made in the writ petition is in respect of promotion given to the respondent No.3 by an order dated 15.11.1999, by which the respondent No.3 was promoted as UDA. The claim made by the petitioner for her seniority over the respondent Nos 3 and 4 was rejected by an order dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), which is quoted below: