JASWANT SINGH RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner -applicant has questioned the order dt. 31.07.2000 as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal') in Original Application ('OA') No. 182/1998 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by him on his grievance against denial of the correct date of promotion. The OA leading to this writ petition was filed by the petitioner applicant seeking the following reliefs: -

(2.) THE reliefs aforesaid were claimed by the petitioner -applicant while stating the facts that he was initially appointed as Power Khalasi at Rewari; and was accorded regular promotions as Typist and Senior Typist. Then, he was promoted to the post of Head Typist with effect from 14.01.1994 against the work -charged post initially for a period of six months that was extended by three months. The applicant was, then, promoted on regular basis to the post of Head Typist under the order dt. 18.10.1994 and was transferred to Lalgarh Workshop. He submitted the option for fixation of his pay under the communication dt. 14.11.1994. However, by a letter dt. 24.08.1995, the Divisional Superintending Engineer (Co -ordination), Northern Railway, Bikaner Division expressed his inability to relieve the applicant on account of excessive work load in the Engineering Branch and hence, the applicant continued to serve under him.

(3.) THE applicant asserted before the Tribunal that he had been given promotion to the post of Head Typist on regular basis without any rider from 18.10.1994 and he was entitled to due pay fixation as per the option given; and that changing the date of regular promotion results in evil consequences and such an order was rather punitive in nature and was ex face illegal. The applicant contended that even after passing of his promotion order as Head Typist and transfer to Lalgarh Workshop on 18.10.1994, he was not relieved by the department on account of work exigencies; and only after his repeated representations that his promotion was given effect to but the promotion was illegally made effective from a subsequent date i.e., 24.07.1997. The applicant referred to the fact that in the case of a similarly situated employee Shri Dharmpal, the promotion was treated to be effective from the date of issuance of promotion order i.e., 17.09.1997 and not from the date of his actual release i.e., 06.04.1999.