Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 13 (UTT)

Mohd. Tahseen v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-01-05

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Since all these writ petitions raise common questions of law, therefore, I am disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners, in all these writ petitions, call in question the impugned order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 1 and order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2. 3. Petitioners were appointed as Urdu Translator/Clerks in Police Department in the year 1995 and since then petitioners have been working on those posts. Since, there was no work for translators in the department; the State Government took a decision to merge the cadre of Urdu Translator/Junior Clerk into the police cadre as Constable (M). Thereafter, consent was sought from the petitioner. Though, petitioners gave their consent; but, they raise certain queries about their pay scale and seniority. Thereafter on 26.05.2016, Government issued an order informing the Director General of Police that services of 62 Urdu Translators/Junior Clerks are being adjusted on the post of constable (M) in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 grade pay Rs. 2000/- against the vacant post of constable (M). In the said order it was mentioned that they will be paid dearness allowance as well as other allowances, as per the Government Order issued from time to time. It was also mentioned in the order that the such personnel shall be kept below the rank of the constable (M) who are already working in the department on that day. Thereafter, in pursuance of the said Government Order, the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand issued an order on 30.06.2016. In the said order, the aforesaid Urdu Translator/Junior Clerks were adjusted on the post of constable (M) with certain conditions. It was mentioned in the order that their substantive appointment will be treated from the date of their adjustment/absorption and that date will be treated for the purpose of seniority/promotion and other service related issues. It was also mentioned in the order that after the merger they will be treated as constable (M) under the ministerial cadre. It was further mentioned that after adjustment on the post of constable (M) they will be given training in the department as per the departmental rules. It was further mentioned that after completion of two years probation period, they will be given promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M). 4. Respondent no. 4 filed a counter affidavit. It was further mentioned that after adjustment on the post of constable (M) they will be given training in the department as per the departmental rules. It was further mentioned that after completion of two years probation period, they will be given promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M). 4. Respondent no. 4 filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, he defended the order passed by the respondents. In para no. 10 he stated that as per the order dated 20.05.2016, the petitioners, after completion of four months of training and two years of probation period, will be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is confining his prayer to the extent that the case of the petitioners be considered for promotion on the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector (M), after completion of training. 6. I think that the prayer made by the petitioner is nothing else what has been written in the letter of the Director General of Police on 30.06.2016 and the same has already been accepted by them in the counter affidavit. 7. Therefore, it is directed that after completion of two years period of probation, the claim of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law by the Department for the promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M). Needless to say that they will be considered against the vacant posts. 8. With the above observations the writ petitions stand disposed of. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in each connected petition.