SOHAN LAL GOYAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has prayed a direction for considering his case for promotion against the post of Supervisor from the year 1978 or from the day when Respondent No. 3 was promoted as Supervisor. He has also prayed arrears, backwages and withheld salary for having rendered work of Supervisor. The consequential benefits and reliefs against the post of Supervisor have also been prayed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the Petitioner was appointed as Mate on 29.9.1973 by Respondent No. 1. He worked as such and is entitled for promotion against the post of Supervisor. It has been alleged that one post of Supervisor is lying vacant, in addition, there is requirement of work and the name of the Petitioner was recommended for the post of Supervisor on promotion. The Respondent No. 1 passed resolution recommending the name of Petitioner for the post of Supervisor. The Petitioner is working as Supervisor whereas he has been designated as Mate only. This is clear from office orders issued by Respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE petition has been contested by Respondent No. 1 by filing reply and has submitted that Respondent No. 1 is not competent authority for promotion for the post of Supervisor. The competent authority is Respondent No. 2. It has been stated that Respondent No. 1 has sent the proposal to Respondent No. 2. No permission has been received from Respondent No. 2. It has been admitted that the Petitioner is working against the post of Mate. The Respondent No. 1 vide resolution No. 374/97 has decided that two additional Supervisors may be appointed and the case was sent to the Government for approval but the permission has not been received from the Government. The Petitioner was designated as Supervisor but no work of Supervisor was taken from the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 was promoted as Supervisor on 1.6.1977 but on or after 1994 the permission is required from the Government for promotion. The Respondent No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.