TARA CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS LPA is directed against the judgment passed by learned Writ Court dated 6th of May, 2008, where -under respondent No.1, Subash Chander, has been directed to be given the benefit as has been given to respondent No.5, Anjali Karihaloo.

(2.) GRIEVANCE of the appellant Corporation is that the respondent No.1 was not entitled to claim the benefit as has been given to respondent No.5 as the respondent No.5 stood on a different footing as compared to the respondent No.l. According to the appellant respondent No.5 along with five other persons was engaged as daily wager in the year 1989. In the year 1993 when SRO 64 was not in force, the appellant Corporation appointed some daily wagers on regular establishment. While doing so vacancies were distributed. Each SFC Division was provided 1 to

(3.) POSTS of Class IVth/Field Assistant/Junior Assistant for adjustment except Vigilance Division, Jammu. Respondent No.5 at the relevant time was posted in Vigilance Division, Jammu, therefore, was not appointed as Junior Assistant. Subsequently when SRO 64 came into force, respondent No.5 along with other daily wagers was regularised as Office Helper but she continued to project her case for being appointed as Junior Assistant on parity basis. She had also filed a writ petition, finally she moved a representation before the Honble Minister concerned, as a result thereof, she in the capacity of Office Helper was promoted as Junior Assistant (Typist) vide SFC order No. 106 of 2006 dated 25.4.2006. 3. It is contended that the seniority position in the cadre of Helper is of no consequence. Respondent No.5 in the peculiar facts was promoted as Junior Assistant (Typist). It is further contended that if the impugned judgment is sustained, there would be chaos in the administration of the appellant Corporation as there are number of persons who are senior to respondent No.5 who will claim the same benefit.