A.K. KAK Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner is that despite his entitlement to the 2nd in-situ promotion with effect from 01.12.2004, the same although processed was not allowed in his favour till the year 2011 and even then, the same was only allowed notionally. In other words, the only benefit i.e. of higher pay scale which was the entitlement of the petitioner on grant of 2nd in-situ promotion was not granted to the petitioner with effect from the date of his entitlement to the 2nd in-situ promotion but was granted only notionally in the year 2011 with effect from the date of his entitlement i.e. 1.12.2004. Learned counsel contended that the aforementioned action of the respondents was legally unsustainable.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that complete documents were not submitted by the petitioner and had the same been done, the benefit would have been given with effect from the due date.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered view that there is merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2nd in-situ promotion was to be granted to an employee who did not get regular promotion in due course of time and the only benefit which accrues to an employee on account of 2nd in-situ promotion is higher pay scale with effect from the date of grant of 2nd in situ promotion. The employee concerned continues to discharge duties on the substantive post. The employee concerned is not promoted to a next higher post but gets benefit of scale only