STATE OF J&K Vs. JAIDEV SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court (Shah J.) dated 17 -5 -1985, The learned Single Judge has directed respondent No. 1s pay in the promoted grade be fixed and payment be made to him of the differences in pay from the date he has been selected by the Departmental promotion Committee to the post of Assistant Manager, Government Press, This order is challenged by the appellant in this appeal

(2.) IT appears that respondent No. 1 had filed a Writ petition against his supersession and had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 herein. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 1 came to be promoted as Assistant Manager in his own pay and grade with effect from 23 -5 -1978 vide SRO -43 -SP/79 dt. 29 -11 -1979. This SRO was placed on the file by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge. The matter was thereafter refered to the Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee which in its meeting dated 27th July. 1982 recommended the name of respondent No. 1 alongwith two other persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, Government Press, Jammu/ Srinagar. The letter of recommendation is reported to have been sent by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 30101982 to the State Government. In view of the subsequent development which was brought on record on 25 -3 -1985 by the respondent No. 1, the only question which survived for determination was with regard to re -fixation of pay and benefits accruing to respondents No. 1 under Art. 85 of the Civil Service Regulation.

(3.) MR R. A. Jan, Government Advocate has submitted that the State was not given an opportunity to rebut the application brought by respondent No. 1 on the file. However, the matter at Jammu seems to have been heard and decided in presence of Mr. S. D. Sharma, Chief Government Advocate. He has not raised this objection before the learned Single Judge but seems to have accepted the contention raised by respondent No. 1 as regards the subsequent development. Mr, Jan has also contended that rules of pleadings would enjoin upon respondent No. 1 to state specifically in his pleading about the grounds on which he basis his relief In the original writ petition he had not claimed re -fixation of pay,, therefore, by a subsequent application, this relief cannot be granted unless the writ petition was amended and the plea was raised specifically,,,.