Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 236 (MP)

Gyan Prakash Bhatnagar v. State of M. P.

2005-02-14

A.K.MISHRA

body2005
JUDGMENT Petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for proper seniority on the promotional post along with the benefits. Petitioner was in the service of Public Relations Department. He was initially appointed in the year 1966 as Translator. His services were lent on deputation to the Central Government on the post of Grade III. i.e. Sub Editor, DPR, Defence Ministry in the pay scale of Rs. 270-482/-. An offer was made to the petitioner of promotion on the post of Asst. Public Relations Officer, at the same time it was informed that he will not be entitled for any allowances on the deputed post being lower in pay scale. Petitioner accepted the deputation. He remained on deputation till June, 1979. It is further averred in the petition that petitioner was made permanent as Translator on 27.4.1970. A provisional seniority list was published on 1.4.1980 of Class III Ministerial employees. Names of directly recruited employees as Asst. Public Relations Officer have found mentioned at Sr. No. 16 to 34. Petitioner has claimed that he ought to have been placed below Shri Rameshwar Prasad Mishra, His placement in the list was not correct. At present petitioner is posted as Dy. Director, Public Relations Officer. The case of the petitioner has been ignored. Petitioner has been deprived of seniority and timely promotion, hence petition has been preferred. In the return filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, it is contended that application has been filed belatedly. On completion of deputation all admissible legal rights have been extended providing due seniority during course of deputation and promotions, if chances arrived at during the course of deputation, were reserved. It is further contended that Department of Information and Publicity was newly organized on 1.4.1971. The set up was again revised in the year 1976. At the time of revision in the year 1976 there were 25 sanctioned posts of Asst. Public Relations Officer and all 25 posts were also filled by posting of Officers. On account of revision in the year 1976 the sanctioned posts of Asst. Public Relations Officer enhanced to 37, at that time 28 posts were already filled up including the 4 Officers who were on deputation to Central Government. 13 posts were vacant as per revised strength. Out of 28 APROS 17 were directly recruited and 11 were on the basis of departmental promotion. Public Relations Officer enhanced to 37, at that time 28 posts were already filled up including the 4 Officers who were on deputation to Central Government. 13 posts were vacant as per revised strength. Out of 28 APROS 17 were directly recruited and 11 were on the basis of departmental promotion. It was decided by the department that out of 13 vacant posts, 9 posts should be filled up by direct recruitment and 4 posts should be on promotion basis, as such direct appointments were made after due process of selection. At that time petitioner was on deputation, when he came back to the parent department, he has been given promotion on the post of APRO out of promotional quota. Thus, no legal right has been infringed, no junior to the petitioner has been promoted during the period when the petitioner was on deputation. Shri R. Dravid with Shri K.G. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered when it became due for consideration as the petitioner was on deputation, as the petitioner was on deputation, he could not have been discriminated with for no fault on his part. Shri R.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as none of the junior to the petitioner was promoted, the action of the respondents is proper. Due seniority has been accorded, promotion has been issued on termination of deputation, hence no interference is called for. It is the settled law that if an employee remained on deputation, he cannot be made to loose his seniority and chance of promotion. The case ought to have been considered with respect to the date when it became due not with respect to the date when he came back to the parent department on repatriation of his services. The respondents are directed to fix the date of entitlement, consider the case of the petitioner with respect to that date and in case petitioner was suitable, to accord seniority w.e.f. from that date. Let exercise be completed within 4 months. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this petition.