LAWS(J&K)-2002-10-18

IRSHAD AHMAD SHAH Vs. STATE

Decided On October 29, 2002
Irshad Ahmad Shah Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 9th January, 1989 an order was passed. Shri Fayaz Ahmad Lone and Shri Fayaz Ahmad Khan were placed in the upgraded scale of Rs. 1300 -2650 of Senior Accountants. The appellant, Shri Irshad Ahmad Shah, who was a Jr. Accountant, was promoted to the scale of Rs. 1300 -2650 against an available vacancy of Senior Accountant. Thereafter an order was passed on 9.12.93. Shri Fayaz Ahmad Lone and Fayaz Ahmad Khan were ordered to draw their salary against the Senior Wool Collector in the grade of Rs. 1500 -2750. It was mentioned that this order has been issued without prejudice to the seniority of the aforementioned Accountants. The appellant made representations. His plea was that he should also be adjusted in the grade of Rs. 1500 -2750. This issue according to the appellant was not considered but another order came to be passed on 25.6.1998. For facility of reference that order is being reproduced below : - "Consequent upon creation of one post of DFA and one post AFA in the 34th Board of Directors meeting, the salary of R. K. Shangloo AFA in the pay scale of Rs. 6700 -290 -10760 will be drawn against the post of DFA with effect from 1.6.98. Similarly the salary of Shri F. A. Lone and F. A. Khan presently drawing salary against the post of Senior Wool Collector in the scale of 6500 -250 -10250 will be against to the posts of AFAs. The posts of DFA and AFAs are purely utilized for the purpose of drawal of salary only. This order is issued without prejudice to the seniority of above incumbents and shall have effect from 1.6.1998."

(2.) THE short submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he has a superior claim vis -a -vis F. A. Lone and F. A. Khan. According to him he was promoted against the available post of Senior Accountant, whereas Shri F. A. Khan ad F. A. Lone were only placed in the upgraded scale of pay. According to him a person who is promoted against an available vacancy has a better claim vis -a -vis those who are merely placed in the upgraded scale i. e., who are adjusted when no post was available. According to him when this is the position, he has a superior claim vis -a -vis Shri F. A. Khan and Shri F. A. Lone. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has ignored this aspect of the matter. It is submitted that those persons who are merely adjusted could not steal a march over him through an indirect method.

(3.) THERE is a merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant who came to be posted against a regular available post cannot be put to a situation which is disadvantageous vis -a -vis two persons referred above who were merely put in a higher grade. The view which as expressed by the learned Single Judge which is basically based on the plea that issue regarding seniority was not clear, is not sustainable. The fact that appellant came to be promoted as Sr. Accountant on available vacancy is a submission which cannot be ignored. It was on account of his seniority in the hierarchy that he came to be promoted as Sr. Accountant. The others were not so promoted but were simply adjusted.