PANNALAL KUMAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Draftsman with the Municipal Board, Chittorgarh Vide order dated 3.2.1955 and was promoted as Overseer Grade -II vide order dated 20.6.1969. After obtaining diploma in Civil Engineering in 1970, the petitioner was promoted as Overseer Grade -I. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having put in 15 years' services as Overseer Grade -I on 1.4.1989 became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1989 -90. The petitioner contends that in all there are 39 posts of Assistant Engineer for various Municipal Boards in Rajasthan, there existed 15 vacancies of Assistant Engineers under Rajasthan Municipal Service, 5 being those which fall under the quota of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to which category the petitioner belongs. The petitioner contends that in spite of his case having recommended for promotion against the quota, he has not been accorded promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

(2.) A reply has been filed in which the substance of contention raised by the petitioner has not been disputed. While it is admitted that the recommendations for appointment/promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer was made, however, it is stated by respondents that the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur passed a stay order and restrained the respondents from giving promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer. However, no orders have been produced nor details of the orders have been stated in the return. The details of the proceedings in which the interim order is alleged to have been passed have also not been placed though reply was filed way back in August, 1990. As far as the vacancies' position is concerned, as per the respondents' reply also, there are after taking Into account the persons working as Assistant Engineers from the Municipal Service (Rajasthan) and persons working on deputation, 17 posts are vacant.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the principle laid down in Vivek Prakash Mathur's case (supra), is fully applicable in the present case and the petitioner is entitled to emoluments of the post of which he was made to discharge duties since 9.12.1989 and all consequential benefits of superannuation flowing therefrom.