DAYA RAM KAUNDAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed on the following prayer : Because the Applicant is senior to Respondent No. 3 on the entry grade post and also on the post of Upper Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 570 -1080 and drawn higher pay in the pay scale of Section 570 -1080 which promotion was conferred on merit basis, he has been confirmed on the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 57 -1080 earlier to Respondent No. 3 which forms anchorsheet for determining seniority and promotion on posts mentioned in Sub -Para (f) herein above, as demonstrated in Para -6 herein above, who ahs been assigned seniority erroneously, unfairly and arbitrarily in utter violation of Apex Court judgments cited in Para -6 and its Sub -Paras he is lawfully entitled for seniority and promotion on all posts of Supdt. Gr.II, Supdt. Gr.I earlier to Respondent No. 3. In view of this, the impugned order (Annex.A -1) being grossly, illegal, unfair and unjust and violative of Principles of Natural Justice, may be quashed and set aside and the Respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to consider the case of the Applicant for promotion to the post of Registrar.

(2.) IN reply, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 5 of the preliminary submissions : That the Applicant has admitted that he was appointed as Clerk on 02 -06 -66 in the department and continued in the same cadre whereas the Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Steno Typist on 11 -08 -1966 in the department. Therefore, it is clear that the Applicant belongs to Clerical cadre and the Respondent No. 3 belongs to the Stenographers cadre and the department has maintained different seniority for both these categories. As per provisions contained in R and P rules for HP PWD Subordinate Class -III (Clerical and Stenographer Services) 1960 both the categories have different identity, qualifications and pay scale. The Steno Typists were in the scale of Rs. 110 -250 + Rs. 25/ - as Special pay whereas Clerks were in the scale of Rs. 110 -250 only. Further, the promotional channel of both the categories were also different as the clerks who used to pass the departmental examination were only designated as Sub Divisional Clerk granting Rs. 20/ - as Cash allowance. These Sub Divisional Clerks were eligible for promotion to the post of Accounts Clerk till 24 -10 -1975 whereas the Steno Typists were eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Scale Stenographers/Circle Stenographers according to the availability of post in their cadre. Later on the Accounts Clerk and Junior Scale Stenographers/Circle Stenographers were promoted as Head Clerk in the ratio of 9:1 (9 from Accounts Clerk and 1 from the category of Stenographer) meaning thereby 9 post were filled from Clerk cadre and every 10th post was to filled by promotion from Stenographer category according to the seniority position in their respective cadre irrespective of seniority position in both the cadres for placement of seniority of Head Clerk/Senior Assistants and the seniority positions was determined on the post of Head Clerks/Senior Assistant according to roster point of reservation. It may be stated that the candidates who were promoted under the rule of reservation by jumped up promotion under the roster point, their seniority was subject to change as per Department of Personnel letter dated 27 -05 -96 copy of Notification annexed as Annexure R -I. The Respondent No. 3 is from the Stenographers (general) category whereas the applicant is from Clerical (reserved) category getting jumped up promotion/seniority and as such, his claim for seniority with other category i.e. Stenographer category is based on surmises and conjuncture without any cogent grounds. Therefore the claim of the applicant is un warranted, baseless, wrong and is not tenable.

(3.) REJOINDER refuting the above stand on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed.