M M SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions are disposed of by this judgment and for the sake of convenience, the fact of Ramjilal Sharma are taken into consideration.

(2.) THE dispute in all these writ petitions is with regard to the seniority list prepared by the respondents in pursuance of the 'directions of this Court. The dispute is between the promotees and direct recruits. The writ petition No. 3170/1987, was filed by Dhanraj Sharma which was decided on 7th Oct. 1992. In the said writ petition the court observed that the respondents failed to act in accordance with the provisions of the rules in the matter of determination of seniority and keeping this failure on the part of the State Government Labour and Welfare Service Rules, 1958 it was directed that the respondents shall determine the yearwise vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1956 and second direction was given that the apportionment of the vacancies so determined shall be on yearly basis maintaining the quota between direct recruits and promotees in the ratio prescribed by the rules which is 50 -50. The third direction which was given was that if it is found that the appointment in any particular year have been given in excess of the present quota to the promotees then the seniority of such promotees shall be determined by pushing them down beyond the quota prescribed for the promotees. Even if the promotion has been made with reference to the year in which direct recruitment has been made, the promotee shall be entitled to seniority only with reference to the year in which the direct recruitment has infact been made. The observations was also made that this shall not effect the emoluments etc. of the promotees which they have already 'drawn during the last many years.

(3.) BESIDE the above observations, directions were given to the State Government to maintain the quota system in the ratio of 50 - 50 as required by Rule 4 of the Rules 1958 as well as Rule 9 of the rules 1972, and a fresh seniority list was directed to be drawn up in accordance with the Rule 26(3) of the Rules of 1970; There was one special appeal filed by Gopal Lal Sharma and 7 others, having No. 352/1993, for which it was observed that they were not party to the writ petition filed in this writ petition and has come to know the impugned order at a later stage. It was observed that their seniority position should not be disturbed by the State Government since they had already been promoted as Labour Welfare Officer as per the requirement of the State and their due seniority should be determined by the Department. It is pointed out by Mr. Rastogi that with regard to the observations of this para, an application for clarification has already been moved by him which is pending before the Division Bench and the review petition has been moved by these petitions which is pending before the Division Bench.