Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 473 (JK)

Jagar Ram v. State & Ors.

2016-09-23

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition is of the year 2006. 2. On several occasions, the matter was listed and nobody appeared on behalf of petitioner. Today also, nobody appears on behalf of petitioner. 3. Going by the nature of relief sought for and after hearing Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for respondents, the writ petition can be disposed of on merits. 4. The petitioner is a matriculate and was appointed as Orderly in the year 1988 in the erstwhile J&K State Legal Aid and Advice Board. After nine years of service, petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant vide order dated 24.11.1997 and posted in District Legal Aid Authority, Kathua. However, by order No. 2 SLSA/(Estt.) of 1998, dated 11.05.1998, his earlier order promoting as Junior Assistant was withdrawn with a direction to petitioner to report back to Tehsil Legal Service Committee, R.S. Pura. The petitioner has been approaching the authority to restore the order dated 24.11.1997 and that remains as such. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that many persons who were junior to him in this category of Junior Assistant were promoted and to cite an example, petitioner has quoted the name of respondent No. 3 - Amar Singh, an Orderly appointed in year 1990 and was promoted as Junior Assistant in year 1996. According to the petitioner, the said Amar Singh is junior to him. 5. In this view of the matter, in the writ petition, petitioner pleads that a Writ of Mandamus be issued to command respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted and for consequential benefits. 6. At this stage, Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that at no point of time, petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant, he was only working as having charge of Junior Assistant. 7. I find from the writ petition that there is no representation placed by the petitioner before the Competent Authority to redress his grievance and, therefore, it is for the Competent Authority to consider and pass appropriate speaking order on the merits of the grievance expressed by the petitioner. Thereafter, if petitioner would not be satisfied, he can challenge the same. 8. Thereafter, if petitioner would not be satisfied, he can challenge the same. 8. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to go into the enquiry as to whether the petitioner is senior to the private respondents and whether their promotion is illegal or bad. The issue relates to questions of fact which can be best addressed by the Competent Authority. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances and on such representation being made along with copy of this order, the authority shall consider and dispose it of within six weeks thereafter. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.