LAWS(GAU)-2006-3-68

BABUL KONWAR Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Decided On March 13, 2006
ITANAGAR BENCH BABUL KONWAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A Apang, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner having been appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the District Ministerial Cadre of Lohit District and joined in the said post in the year 1983. In terms of the relevant service rules, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) vide order No. LE-G 151/PT-111/95/12942-48 dated 1.7.1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). While the petitioner was serving as UDC, he acquired some experience in the accounts procedures and matters. In the meantime, one post of UDC having been created in the office of the District Urban Development Agency, the Commissioner, Urban Development vide letter No. DUDA/ESSTT-130/2001-02/2027- 42 dated 5.8.2002 wrote to the Deputy Com- missioner-cum-Chairman, DUDA of different districts for placing in the said post of UDC under the disposal of Deputy Commissioner- cum-Chairman, DUDA, wherein it was also stated that instructions are being issued separately regarding the transferability of persons between the District and the State HQ, joint seniority etc.

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner, Lohit Dis- trict, Tezu under whom the petitioner was serving as UDC and in terms of the order of the Commissioner, Urban Development, issuing office order No. B/49/448 dated 5.9.2002 transferred the petitioner from his establishment to the District Urban Development Agency at Tezu against the said newly created post. It may be stated herein that during the relevant time the petitioner was serving as UDC in the Block Development Office, Howai in Lohit District. Pursuant to the aforesaid transfer order, the petitioner joined in his duty in the Urban Development Agency on 20.11.2002. The petitioner, after joining in the District Urban Development Agency has been allowed to work as Cashier and he is rendering service in the same capacity till date. To put it otherwise the service of the petitioner has been accepted by the Urban Development Agency.