NARINDER GAIKWAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in Bombay Engineering Group Kirkee on 30th May, 1983. He was promoted to the post of Lance Niak on 26.1.1987 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Niak on 6.7.1988. The post of Niak is in feeder category for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar. The promotion from Naik to Havaldar was regulated as per notifications dated 18th December, 1985, 18th January, 1993 and 10th October, 1997. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the process for filling the post of Havaldar was initiated by four Commands i.e. Southern Command, Western Command, Northern Command and Central Command but the same was not initiated by the Eastern Command which resulted in delay in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Naik to the post of Havaldar. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Havaldar with effect from 19th September, 1994. He filed a statutory complaint and on that basis the seniority of the petitioner was fixed in the rank of Havaldar with effect from 22nd November, 1992 without effect of pay and allowances. He made a second statutory complaint on 9th July, 1997, which was disposed of by the Army Headquarters on the basis of which the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar and he was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar on 3.9.1998 with ante date seniority w.e.f. 3.3.1994. The petitioner has further been promoted to the post of Subedar vide order dated 31st August, 2000.

(2.) MR . H.S Gyani, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had strenuously argued that the petitioner is entitled to pay and allowance of the post of Havaldar with effect from 22nd November, 1992 and is also entitled to pay and allowance of the post of Naib Subedar with effect from 3rd March, 1994 onwards. He also contended that his case for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar as well as for the post of Subedar should have been taken into consideration effectively with effect from 22nd November, 1992 and 3rd March, 1994 instead of 19th September, 1994 and 3rd September, 1998. He also contended that his client should rank senior to one Sh. Pushkar Singh Kharayat.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.