MAKAM KISHORE KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner joined as Assistant Executive Engineer in the General Reserve Engineering Force (here-in-after referred to as "GREF") against a regular post in the year 1991. According to the petitioner, as per GREF Rules, after rendering qualifying service for a period of 5 (five) years, an Assistant Engineer becomes eligible to get promotion to the next higher post of Executive Engineer. Though the similarly recruited officers, in other Central Government Services, got promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer after completion of 5 (five) years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner had to languish in the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer even after rendering 9 (nine) years of service. Failing to get promotion in his parent department, the petitioner, in response to an advertisement, applied for a post of Assistant Professor in the College of Military Engineering, Pune and appeared in the selection process conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. As the petitioner got selected for the said post, he approached the authority in his parent department seeking release on lien for joining in the post of Assistant Professor in the College of Military Engineering, Pune. In the said application for lien, the petitioner clearly mentioned that he sought for lien to join another Government Department on the ground that his due promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer in GREF was not given to him and that he was compelled to seek the lien aforesaid for betterment of his career prospect. According to the petitioner, subsequently he came to know that during the pendency of his application for lien, his name was considered, by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the parent department, for his promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer, but this information was not made available to him and thus he was denied the legitimate opportunity of apprising his option. As requested, the petitioner was released on lien with effect from 01.08.2000. Subsequently, the said lien was extended for another year i.e. upto 31.08.2003. THE Director General of Border Roads vide letter No. 16060/SL/DGBR/76/EID dated 13.11.2002 published a seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) in which the petitioner's name was not shown. THE petitioner, not finding his name in the seniority list submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Secretary, Border Roads Development Board on 31.12.2002 seeking inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil). In response to the petitioner's said representation, the Border Roads Development Boards, vide letter No.F.BRDB04/1393/2003/GE-1 dated 19.05.2003, assured the petitioner that his promotion will be considered only after his return to the parent cadre. Accordingly, before the expiry of his extended period of lien, the petitioner, on 21.07.2003, reverted to the parent department. After his return, the petitioner approached his parent department with a request to promote him with effect from February, 2001 i.e. the period when his batch mates were promoted. But to the surprise of the petitioner, the authority had informed him that he could not be promoted in the vacancies for the year 2003-2004. However he was assured that his case would be considered against the vacancy of 2004-2005.

(2.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner requested the authority to consider his case for promotion on the basis of the panel drawn for the year 2000-2001 as he was in the cadre strength of the organization on 01.01.2002. According to the petitioner, the authority concerned kept him in dark about inclusion of his name in the panel prepared for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer during the year 2000-2001 and thus deprived him from exercising his option to revert to the parent cadre to avail the benefit of promotion. Hence the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking relief in the nature of a direction to the respondents to restore his seniority in the original inter se seniority list of Executive Engineers (Civil) as on 01.08.2002 and also for a direction to correct his seniority position.

(3.) MR. Bhattacharya, learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner went on lien, it was the duty of the respondents to give him an opportunity to exercise his option for reverting to the parent department at the time of consideration of his promotion. The learned counsel has also submitted that as the petitioner had lawfully gone on lien, he was entitled to get all the benefits, which accrued to him in the parent department, during the said period of lien.