AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aftab H. Saikia, C.J.—Heard Mr. Jagdish Parihar, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant as well as Mr. N.P. Kotwal,
learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.
None appears for remaining respondents despite notice.
In passing the order dated 29.02.2000, impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, the Writ Court on consideration of the entire materials available
on record and having discussed the issue by a well reasoned order, allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1 as writ petitioner and
arrived at a finding that the respondent No. 1 herein was entitled to get his seniority with all consequential benefits, as he was senior on the face of
record itself by his date of appointment/promotion on September 30, 1974, as Depot Assistant, against the private respondents.
It is on record that respondent No. 1 was promoted on September 30, 1974, and other private respondents were promoted after that.
Respondent No. 1 as the writ petitioner before the Writ Court relied on the tentative seniority list dated December 24, 1992. However, no record
has been produced by the official appellant so as to support that seniority list and, on this count alone, learned Single Judge accordingly observed
that once the record was not available, then as how the seniority list was prepared on December 24, 1992.
That apart, an order dated March 31, 1980, was placed on record on behalf of one respondent, namely Nazir Ahmed, in the writ petition,
enclosing the same as Annexure C.15, which indicated that certain officials regarding whom grievance was made by respondent No. 1, were given
adhoc promotions with the clear understanding that this would be without prejudice to the seniority of other employees. When the Writ Court
asked the official appellants to produce the record, it was submitted that the said documents were not traceable. In such circumstances, the relief
as prayed for was granted to respondent No. 1. It may be noted that even today also, no records as such have been placed before the Court.
Having closely considered the impugned judgment and order and also after hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length, we hold that
respondent No. 1 was rightly placed on his seniority position entitling him to all his consequential benefits. Accordingly, we find no valid or
plausible grounds to disturb the findings recorded by the Writ Court in allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1.
Accordingly this appeal stands dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, we would like to record our appreciation to Mr. Parihar for his valuable assistance rendered in arriving at a
decision aforesaid.