YOG RAJ SUDAN Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short relief prayed for by the petitioner in this petition, is for considering his case for promotion as Technical Assistant/ EMIO/ Assistant Director w.e.f 1/8/1998, the date when his immediate junior one Sh. Sansar Singh was so promoted, with all consequential benefits. The facts in brief may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner came to be appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer in the Employment (Exchange) Department vide order No. 27-ED of 1983 dtd. 17/6/1983 issued by respondent No. 3 and was posted in the District Employment Exchange Rajouri. Revised tentative seniority list of the non- Gazetted staff of the Employment Department was circulated by the respondent No. 3 vide his circular No. DS/ESTTG/89 dtd. 14/2/1989. The petitioner was shown at serial No. 1 in the cadre of Junior Scale Stenographer with his date of appointment indicated as June 1983. One Sansar Singh who was working as Junior Employment Officer in the Department was placed at Serial No. 6 with his date of appointment as Junior Employment Officer as August 1985.Though the post of Junior Employment Officer and Stenographer fall in two different categories of the same class i.e Class II, yet both serve as feeding cadre for promotion to the post of EMIO. It is thus, contended that for the purpose of making promotion to the post of EMIO, the Junior Employment Officer and Stenographer are treated to be one class and promotions amongst these categories are required to be made strictly on the basis of seniority.

(3.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact the petitioner was senior in class II of the schedule than Sansar Singh, yet the respondents promoted Sansar Singh as Assistant Director retrospectively w.e.f 1/8/1998 in terms of Government order no. 11-L&E of 2001 dtd. 9/2/2001. The petitioner was, however, denied the promotion on the ground that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was under suspension and facing the trial in prevention of corruption case. He was, however, exonerated of the charges and acquitted by the High Court vide its judgement 24/3/2005. The petitioner claims that as a result of his acquittal from the High Court, he was reinstated by the respondents vide Government order No. 17-l&E of 2005, dtd. 17/12/2005. On acquittal from the High Court and his reinstatement in the service, the petitioner claims that he made representation to the respondent No. 4 seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the higher post of Technical Assistant/ Assistant Director and consequent his placement in appropriate place of seniority. Representation, though was received by the respondent No. 3 and forwarded to respondent No.2 for taking appropriate action in terms of recruitment rules but nothing fruitful was done. It has been brought to the notice of this court that during the pendency of the petition, the case of the petitioner came to be considered by the Department Promotion Committee (DPC) and pursuant to the recommendation of DPC dtd. 17/8/2010, the petitioner was promoted as EMIO w.e.f 1/7/1995 notionally. It was decided in the meeting of the DPC that the case of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Assistant Director from the date he became eligible and post was available, shall be forwarded to the Administrative Department. It is thus, contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that so far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the promotion of EMIO is concerned, the same has been redressed but his grievance that he is entitled to parity with Sansar Singh a junior to him who is promoted as Assistant Director w.e.f 01-08- 1998, has not been redressed.