PALDAN CHEWANG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORN of un -necessary detail the petitioners case is that as senior most Store Keeper he was given charge of Inspector for certain food stores in District Kargil under order no. ADES/K/Estt/2002 -03 dated 23.11.2002 passed by Assistant Director on recommendation of SDM Zanskar with approval of Dy. Commissioner Kargil in his own pay and grade. Grievance projected is that respondents intend to change this temporary arrangement so made by some other temporary arrangement which petitioner believes would be prejudicial to him as he has accrued the right to continue in the post till regular arrangement is made for the same, particularly because nothing adverse has come on record against him. Accordingly, he prays for a direction to respondents to continue him in the temporary arrangement and pay him the charge allowance for same.

(2.) IN their reply the respondents while admitting that petitioner was given the charge of Inspector for certain food centers in Kargil District plead that since he is not holding the post of Inspector on substantive basis he had no right to continue on the same as the post was required to be filled up on substantive basis. During course of submissions counsel for parties have reiterated their respective pleadings.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Admittedly the petitioner is functioning as incharge Inspector for the food stores of "Abran" "Phay" "Tongorie" "Karsha" and "Sani" under orders of Assistant Director of respondent -department in his own pay and grade, which perse does not vest any right of continuation in him on the post. At the same time, the respondents also may not be acting properly by substituting the petitioner by another adhoc arrangement which in terms would not make any sense.