BALDEO SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have not been given the similar benefit as has been given to other junior persons on the basis of judgment delivered in O.A. No. 225/93. Therefore, they have filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs: - "(a) Quash the impugned action of the respondent department whereby they are not giving the similar benefits to the present applicants as being given to the applicants in OA Nos. 225/93 and 1098/ 93, their such action being arbitrary, mala fide and illegal; (b) Direct the respondents to grant the similar benefits to the present applicants as is being given to the applicants in O.A. Nos. 225/ 93 and 1098/93 with all the consequential benefits; (c) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant documents for perusal by this Honble Tribunal alongwith their reply; (d) Allow the cost of this OA; and (e) Pass such other order or directions as deemed fit and proper in favour of the applicant.

(2.) The stand taken up by the respondents is that a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short D.P.C.) held on October 17, 1987 had considered the names of certain Kanungos. The names of S/ Sh. Lalit Kumar, Shiv Singh Nakta and Budhi Singh were also considered.

(3.) It was found difficult to consider the names of eligible Kanungos for promotion to the post of Naib -Tehsildar as there were number of Kanungos who had put in only about one and half year of service but were senior as per the seniority list. After great discussion, it was felt that it would not be in the public interest to keep such a large number of posts of Naib -Tehsildar unfilled for an indefinite period. Therefore, Committee had decided to consider the case of each Kanungo individually and promotion orders were issued vide order dated October 27,1987 (Annexure R -l) which were challenged by S/Sh. Lalit Kumar and Shiv Singh Nakta in O.A. No. 225/ 93 and O.A. 1098/93. These were allowed vide order Annexures R -2 and R -3 and the aforesaid promotion orders were quashed and set aside. It is further alleged that in view of certain guidelines received from the Government, names of the applicants were not considered by the D.P.C. Again, Review D.P.C. met on March 7,2003 in order to implement the order passed by the Tribunal but it had not considered the names of the present applicants. It is admitted that the matter was taken up with the Government to give similar benefit to the applicants on their representations in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal on September 16, 2002. Since, no impugned order has been challenged, therefore, the Original Application is premature and deserves to be dismissed.