Mohammad Yaqoob Wani vs State Of J&K And Others

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J

The petitioner, by the present writ petition, seeks a direction in the name of respondents to grant him the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (Revised) from the date of his initial appointment into the service and the respondent no. 1 be directed to consider and issue the orders of upgradation of the post of Lift Operator in favour of the petitioner as recommended by respondent no. 2 in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-1830 (unrevised) Rs. 4000-6000 (Revised) and pay him the arrears with effect from the date of his initial appointment.

The short and simple issue raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner is an employee in the High Court of J&K, appointed initially as Lift Operator in the year 1989 after having been appointed as such in terms of Order No. 169 dated 13.5.1989 and placed in the grade of Rs. 630-940 and he is not being paid the grade attached with the post as is being paid to the other similarly situated employees of the other Government department, i.e., 900-1830 (Unrevised). He is stated to have represented in this behalf many a times and the respondent no. 2 addressed communications to respondent no. 1, however, nothing has been done as yet, therefore, the writ petition.

Respondents, upon notice appeared but the reply has been filed only by respondent no. 2 stating therein that the petitioner has initially been appointed as Lift Operator but later on in terms of order No. 61-1 dated 12.04.2007 he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 2010 in terms of Order No. 1232 dated 31.03.2010 and lastly the petitioner has further been promoted to the post of Head Assistant in terms of Order No. 1573/Gs dated 10.04.2020. Therefore, it is stated that since the petitioner has got three functional promotions from the date of his appointment and is presently working as Head Assistant, therefore, the claim made in the writ petition does not have any legal basis as he has not been subjected to any discrimination.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made.

Mr B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, submits that the petitioner has no claim against the respondent no. 1 as he is not holding the post, of which the benefit is sought, anymore.

Ms Masooda Jan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, submits that there is nothing required to be done by the respondent no. 2 in the matter as the petitioner has switched to a feeding cadre different than the one, he is actually appointed against.

The petitioner way back in the year 2007 stands promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and then to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 2010 and lastly in the current year he stands promoted to the post of Head Assistant and all such developments have been accepted by him without a whisper, therefore, he has, for all practical purposes, abandoned the cadre he has been appointed against and is now a member of the Ministerial cadre in particular class and category in the seniority and has got the promotions also on such basis.

Merely because at one point of time the petitioner has worked as lift operator does not give him any indefeasible right to approach the court because the claim of the petitioner has been settled with his promotion as Junior Assistant and his adjustment in the Ministerial Cadre. Therefore, in terms of the recruitment rules the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for.

Having regard to what has been said hereinbefore, we do not see any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed along with connected CMs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.