Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 597 (JK)

Dhyan Singh v. State of J&K

2016-11-21

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner inter alia has challenged the validity of order dated 17th September, 2003, by which Respondent No. 5 has been promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests. The petitioner also seeks a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to promote him to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest w.e.f., 17th September, 2003 and to accord him all consequential benefits. Facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Officer in the year 1966. Thereafter, he was promoted as Range Officer Grade-II in the year 1981 and as Range Officer Grade-I on 19th December, 1989 along with Respondent No. 5. However, petitioner was senior to Respondent No. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5 belong to Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 11th November, 2003. It is also pertinent to mention here that Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu vide Communication dated 17th February, 2004 recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. However, no inquiry was held against the petitioner and he was allowed to superannuate w.e.f., 31st March, 2005. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 by a Communication dated 22nd February, 2006 informed the State Government that the suspension of the petitioner is wholly unjustified and the petitioner is an upright and honest officer. Thereupon the State Government passed an order dated 29th May, 2006, by which the petitioner was re-instated in the service and his period of suspension from 11th November, 2003 till date of superannuation i.e., 31st March, 2005 was treated to be on duty. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and junior to the petitioner, namely, Respondent No. 5 was promoted w.e.f., 17th September, 2003. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approach this Court. 2. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests and junior to the petitioner, namely, Respondent No. 5 was promoted w.e.f., 17th September, 2003. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approach this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from perusal of Communications dated 17th February, 2004 and 22nd February, 2006, it is evident that the petitioner wrongly placed under suspension and was in fact recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. However, he has been deprived of his legitimate claim for consideration of promotion of the aforesaid post. It is further submitted that respondents be directed to constitute a review DPC and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the light of the aforesaid Communications dated 17th February, 2004 and 22nd February, 2006 in a time bound manner. On the other hand, Mr. Ahtsham Bhat, learned Government Advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner for promotion shall be considered in accordance with law. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The right of the respondents to file the reply/objections has already been closed in the light of the order dated 04th October, 2016. From perusal of Communication dated 17th February, 2004, it is evident that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu has made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner that he is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Similarly, from the Communication dated 22nd February, 2006, it is evident that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests after conducting the inquiry has found that the suspension of the petitioner was wholly unjustified and the petitioner is an upright and honest officer. In view of the recommendations made by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the petitioner was re-instated in service vide order dated 29th May, 2006 passed by the State Government and the period of suspension of the petitioner from 11th November, 2003 till date of superannuation i.e., 31st March, 2005 has been directed to be treated as on duty. 4. In view of the preceding analysis, it is evident that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. 5. 4. In view of the preceding analysis, it is evident that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. 5. In view of the preceding analysis, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to convene the meeting of review DPC and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the light of the aforesaid Communications dated 31st March, 2003, 17th February, 2004 and 22nd February, 2006 by a speaking order within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that in case, the petitioner is found entitled for benefit of promotion, the same shall be given to him w.e.f., 17th September, 2003 and all consequential benefits shall be awarded to him within aforesaid period. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected MP(s).