DEVI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has pray that he may be declared as quasi -permanent and confirmed on the of Mate -II on and from the date persons junior to him are so confirmed. Further prayed that he may be given promotion to the post of Mate -I w.e.3 -9 -1983 and he may be considered for further promotion to the post Tractor Driver w.e.f. 1 -4 -1982. He has also claimed the consequential bene arising there from. He further prayed that he may be given House Allowance from 3 -9 -1969 to 13 -10 -1985 and also cash earned leave for of period from 1979 -80, 1980 -81, 1981 -82, 1982 -83 and 1983 -84.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the State Farm Corporation India Ltd. while working at the Central State Farm, Suratgarh, the service the petitiones were terminated, therefore, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 401 of 1977 before this Court, challenging his removal from service. Court by the order dated 5 -9 -1984 quashed his order of termination declared that the petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential bene After disposal of the writ petition the petitioner reported on duty 28 -9 -1984. He was reinstated on 16 -10 -1984, but he was not paid any or emoluments. Therefore, he filed a contempt petition which came registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 195/1985. During pendency of this petition an order was passed on 18/28 -10 -1985 18/28 -10 -1985 directing he may be paid full back wages w.e.f. 3 -2 -1969 to 16 -10 -1984. It was also ordered that subsistence allowance paid during the termination may be adjusted against the arrears. Therefore, he was told that he must withdraw the contempt petition then alone the payment will be made and he accordingly withdrew the contempt petition and payment was made. The petitioner has again filed the present writ petition and prayed that consequential benefits arising from the judgment of this Court were not given to him. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition praying the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents and it has been submitted that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience in regard to the operation of the machinery, therefore, he could not be promoted as Mate -I. It is further submitted that Sarva Shri Jamil Khan, Govind Singh and Jamaluddin were promoted in the year 1973 as Mate -1 because they were having Tractor driving licence, where as the petitioner has never produced the Tractor driving licence. Therefore, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Mate -I. Sarva Shri Om Prakash and Pala Singh were appointed as Bin Keepers in Stores because the post of Mate -II was abolished and, therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to give this post to these persons and they were absorbed as Bin Keepers. It was also submitted that the channel of promotion from Mate -II is Mate -I and not the tractor driver.