Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 741 (RAJ)

Ram Kishan v. State of Rajasthan

2002-04-09

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been riled by the petitioner against the respond- ents on 24-9-92 with a prayer that the order dated 30-7-70 (Annex. 4). order dated 26-6-72. Order dated 3-7-72 (Annex. 5), order dated 25-9-90 (Annex. 22) and order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23) may be declared illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and the petitioner be fixed in the pay scale of L 2000-3200 from the date on which the petitioner became eligible for getting selection grade as per order of the Government of Rajasthan dated 23-1-85 and 25- 1-92 and further the petitioner may be declared confirmed on the post of overseer with effect from 1-5-70. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) The respondent No. 2 called the petitioner for interview on 20-3-69 for the post of Overseer (Junior Engineer) vide latter No. 21/31 dated 15-3-69. A photocopy of letter dated 15-3-69 is marked as Annex. 1. (ii) After interview, the petitioner was found suitable candidate for selection and he was selected against the vacant post of overseer vide order No. Estt/Overseer/ R.G.W.B./69/71 dated 4-4-69. A copy of order is marked as Annexure. 2. (iii) The petitioner joined his duty as an overseer on 1-5-69 and he was posted in the office of Assistant Engineer (Civil) R.G.W.B. Bikaner vide order No. 59 XEN/ Famine/69-70 dated 2-5-69 (Annex. 3). (iv) In the year 1970, some posts of Over- seer were abolished by the Government of Rajasthan vide order No. F.5)159) Agr. 2/68 dated 12-6-70. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred from the post of Overseer to the post of Surveyor vide order No. Estt. /Transfer/R.G.W.B./70/9759-9800 dated 30-7-70 (Annex. 4). (v) The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Surveyor vide order No. DSR/Estt./ C-34/72-73/3182 dated 3-7-72 (Annex. 5). (vi) The petitioner raised objections for confirming him on the post of Surveyor. He made a representation to the higher authorities of the department stating that his initial appointment was on the post of Overseer, thereto' e, he must have been confirmed on the post of Overseer and not on the post of Surveyor. The further case of the petitioner is that through order dated 8-1-73 (Annex. 6). He made a representation to the higher authorities of the department stating that his initial appointment was on the post of Overseer, thereto' e, he must have been confirmed on the post of Overseer and not on the post of Surveyor. The further case of the petitioner is that through order dated 8-1-73 (Annex. 6). the petitioner was again posted as Overseer and the petitioner resumed his duties as overseer on 15-1-73 through joining report dated 15-1-73 (Annex. 7). (vii) The further case of the petitioner is that since then (15-1-73) he was working as overseer. (viii) The State Government has granted selection grades to the employees who have completed 9. 18 and 27 years of service. The petitioner could not get promotion due to non-availability of the posts. The selection grades have been granted vide order No. F.17(5)F.D. (Gr. 2) 84 dated 23-1-85. After this order, some problem regarding stagnation arose, then an order for resolving the problems of stagnation was also issued by the Department of Finance (Gr. 2); Government of Rajasthan dated 251-92 (Annex. 21). (ix) The petitioner submitted representations on 30-8-90 and 13-9-90 to the respondent No. 2 for confirming him on the post of Overseer, but the respondent No. 2 refused to confirm him as Overseer vide letter No. F.9(45) Estt./90/3980 dated 25-9- 90 (Annex. 22). (x) Through order No. F.9/Estt./92/2304 dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23) issued by the Government of Rajasthan. the petitioner was given selection grade of L 1640-60-2600- 75-2900 of the post of Surveyor instead of L 2000-60-2300-75-3200 of the post of Overseer. (xi) After issuance of order dated 16-6- 92 Annex. 23, the petitioner again made a representation on 27-6-92 for confirming him on the post of Overseer and granting him the selection grade of L 2000-60- 2300-75-3200, but no reply was given to the petitioner. Hence. this writ petition. 2. In this writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that selection grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of service should have been given to the petitioner of the post of Overseer and not of the post of Surveyor and thus order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23) which is the basis by which he was given selection grade of the Post of Surveyor be declared null and void. 3. 23) which is the basis by which he was given selection grade of the Post of Surveyor be declared null and void. 3. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents on 3-3-93 and the main submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since he was confirmed on the post of Surveyor, therefore, selection grade of the post of Surveyor on completion of 9 and 18 years of service have been given to the petitioner and he is not entitled to the selection grade of the post of Overseer. I have heard both and perused the record. 4. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was initially appointed as over- seer and some posts of Overseer were abolished and, therefore, he was later on posted as Surveyor and not as Overseer through order dated 30-7-70 Annex. 4. There is also no dispute on the point that through order dated 3-7-72 (Annex. 5), the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Surveyor. There is also no dispute on the point that since Jan.. 1973, the petitioner was again posted as Overseer and remained on the same post upto 1992. There is also no dispute on the point that through order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23), the petitioner was given selection grade of the post of Surveyor on completion of 9 and 18 years of service. 5. Since the present petitioner is working as Overseer since 1973, in my opinion. selection grade on completion of a 9 and 18 years of services should have been given to the petitioner of the post of Overseer and not of the post of Surveyor. The fact that lie was confirmed on the post of Surveyor would not effect. Since thereafter he was again posted as Overseer and remained as Over- seer upto 1992. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23) cannot be sustained in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to selection grade of the post of Overseer in place of Surveyor.For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent that order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23) cannot be sustained in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to selection grade of the post of Overseer in place of Surveyor.For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent that order dated 16-6-92 (Annex. 23) passed by the Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, Jodhpur is quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner and it is further directed that the benefit of selection grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of service be given to the petitioner of the post of Over- seer in place of Surveyor from the date, the petitioner became entitled for the same will hin a period of three months from today. Cost made easy. Petition allowed. *******