LAWS(RAJ)-2008-10-1

INDERJEET SINGH FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. STATE OTHERS

Decided On October 23, 2008
Inderjeet Singh Food Inspector Appellant
V/S
State Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to count his services from the date of joining as Inspector Grad -II in Command Area Development, Chambal, Kota, i.e. from 17.12.1977. Further it is prayed that the orders dated 08.01.1992 and 15.12.1993 be modified to that extent and all consequential benefits be given to the petitioner.

(2.) BROADLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector Grade -II in the Command Area Development Office, Kota on 30.11.1977 in the pay scale of 440 -770. The petitioner had faced an interview and he was appointed against a permanent post. The petitioner joined his services on 30.11.1977.

(3.) LATER on, a seniority list;, under the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Subordinate Service Rules, 1974, was published on 14.12.1981. But, as the petitioner had joined in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies after the abolition of the post in C.A.D., Kota, in the year 1983, his name was not shown in the said seniority list. However, after absorption of the petitioner, neither his name was included in the seniority list nor he was' confirmed and as such the petitioner made representation on 03.06.1985 (Annexure -5), with a request to include his name in the seniority list of the Department from the date of his initial appointment. Again, a representation was made which duly forwarded by the District Supply Officer, Kota on 05.09.1991. The District Supply Officer had sent a letter on 02.12.1991 to the Secretary to Government, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur referring the earlier representation made by the petitioner and also mentioned that the petitioner had been absorbed on the post of Enforcement Inspector but his name had not yet been included in the seniority list. While making the said representation, the petitioner had also placed a copy of the judgment of the High Court dated 24.11.1990, upon which he placed reliance in support of his representation.