LAWS(RAJ)-1984-2-21

DULHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On February 20, 1984
Dulha Ram Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Dulha Ram had filed this writ application asking for the following reliefs:

(2.) THIS writ application was filed while he was working as a Naib Tehsildar. Later in pursuance of an order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, he was promoted as a Tehsildar and thereafter he superannuated. In these circumstances, during the course of arguments of this writ application, the learned Counsel for the petitioner suggested that if the opposite parties consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as a Tehsildar vis a vis his next junior Shri Han' Ram who was promoted as a Tehsildar in 1969, he would be satisfied. The learned Deputy Government Advocate assisted by the learned Deputy Registrar agrees to this suggestion. He, however, stated that the exact date when Shri Hari Ram was promoted as Tehsildar is not readily available to them at present but if the case of the petitioner for promotion as Tehsildar had not been considered at the time when Hari Ram's case was considered, they will consider the case of the petitioner vis a vis the non -petitioner No. 6 Shri Hari Ram and further that if he is found fit for promotion when Shri Ram was so promoted, he will be given his due. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to this.

(3.) I therefore, partly allow this writ application and direct that the non -petitioner No. 2, the Board of Revenue will consider the case of Dulha Ram petitioner for his promotion vis a vis Shri Hari Ram non -petitioner No. 6 when he was promoted on the basis of the material available on the personal records of the petitioners at that time, if the case of the petitioner had not been considered at that time. If on such consideration, the petitioner Dulha Ram is found fit for promotion at that time, be will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been so appointed at that time. Six months' time is allowed to the Board to consider the matter in this light.