ASU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of financial benefits attached to the post of Helper, to the petitioner, w.e.f. 4.10.96, i.e., the date his juniors were granted promotion to the post of Helper.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Helper vide order dated 20.2.2002 passed by the respondents and has been discharging the duties. In the year 1993, the respondent No.4 has forwarded the seniority list of Chowkidars working in the office of the respondent No.3. Due to some clerical error/mistake at the level of respondent No.4, the name of the petitioner was not included in the seniority list. On coming to the knowledge of the petitioner, he made a written request to the respondent No.4 to include his name in the seniority list. The respondent No.3 also vide letter dated 8.12.1993 requested respondent No.4 to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Chowkidars. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 4.10.1996, promoted about 31 Chowkidars working in various Rural Water Projects to the post of Helper for the period of three months or till the regular candidates are made available by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner was eligible for promotion. He was not considered because his name was not included in the seniority list. By virtue of the order dated 4.10.1996, 13 persons junior to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Helper. The petitioner was deprived of his promotion without his fault. He made a representation to the respondents and considering his representation, the respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.12.2002 included the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Chowkidars at S.No.58(B). The respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.2.2002 has also amended the promotion order dated 4.10.1996 and included the name of the petitioner at S.No.18(B) on the basis of his seniority, but at the same time, he ordered to give notional benefits of promotion. The petitioner aggrieved of his notional promotion and that he has not been granted the benefits as granted to

(3.) This juniors, approached the Court. The respondents have filed reply stating therein that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Helper on 20.2.2002. The seniority lists were issued on 26.12.1993 and 4.10.1996. The petitioner did not make any grievance. Since the petitioner was not in the seniority list, therefore, the respondents have not committed any mistake and have made promotions according to the seniority list. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.