Joat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

By means of the writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to pass the order to grant the enhanced Grade Pay of Assistant Development Officer Scale i.e. Rs. 4600/- to the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2013.

(ii) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner."

Petitioner was initially appointed as Mali (Gardner) on 01.11.1976 in Rajkiya Udhyan Vibhag Khirsu, Tehsil Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. Thereafter, on 04.12.2006 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Horticulture Supervisor (Group 3rd) in Udhyan Sachal Dal Kendra Champawat, District Champawat. The petitioner was again promoted to the post of Assistant Development Officer (Group IInd) on 13.05.2016. Thereafter, on 31.07.2016, petitioner got retired from the post of Assistant Development Officer (Group IInd Non- Gazetted Officer) from Udhyan Sachal Dal Kendra Pauri, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal.

It is contended that the service conditions of the post of Gardner were/are governed by the statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, namely, Horticulture Department Group D Service Rules 1993. Rule 17(1) of the said Rules provides promotion on Group C post i.e. Supervisor Grade-III, Rule 5 of the same provides 20% quota for promotion from the serving Mali, those amongst who were having the qualification of High School and have completed five years on the first day of the recruitment year and remaining 80% post will be filled up by direct recruitment from Commission.

It is further contended that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 07.09.2015 by which it has been directed that the benefit of ACP be also given to the employees working in the Horticulture Department who fulfill the requirement of ACP Scheme and Service Rules.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Perusal of the Government Order dated 07.09.2015 would reveal that the provisions of A.C.P. have been made for the employees who are working on the substantive post, where the promotional post is available, the benefit of A.C.P. will not available. Petitioner's case is that he got promotion on the post of Assistant Development Officer on 13.05.2016, thus, in view of this Court, petitioner has already been promoted, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. Furthermore, petitioner has filed this writ petition after three years of his retirement and did not raise this plea before his retirement.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has already got the benefit of Government Order dated 07.09.2015 as he has already been promoted on the post of Assistant Development Officer, benefit of A.C.P. is available to those who have not been promoted by any of the reasons. After three years of his retirement the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage. Petitioner did not explain any delay and latches in filing the writ petition. Furthermore, there is no merit in the writ petition.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.