Ram Abhilakh Verma vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None is present on behalf of private opposite party No. 3 and 4.

Since both these writ petitions involve common question of law, hence are decided by the present common judgment.

Present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to hold regular selection for the post of Research Officer (Technical) in the State Planning Institute and to discontinue the ad hoc promotion of the opposite party No. 3 and 4 on the post of Research Officer on the ground that they are junior to the Petitioner.

Opposite party No. 3 and 4 were promoted on ad hoc basis on 28.9.1985 on the post of Research Officer. In para 29 of the writ petition, it has been stated that 12 posts under the promotion quota of the Research Officer, are lying vacant. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied the averments made in para 29 of the writ petition. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 in para 20 of the counter affidavit, have stated that at the time of promotion of the opposite party No. 3 and 4, to the post of Research Officer on ad hoc basis, the Petitioner was not eligible since he has not been confirmed on the post of Research Assistant. It has further been averred in the para that the Petitioner has been confirmed on the post of Research Assistant with effect from 25.1.1986, by the order dated 22.3.1988.

Submission of the Petitioner''s counsel is that there being no impediment against the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date the junior persons have been promoted. An interim order was passed by this Court on 26.2.1992 directing the opposite parties to consider Petitioner''s candidature for promotion to the post of Research Officer (Technical) in accordance with the Service Rules. In consequence thereof, by the order dated 28.12.1995, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Research Officer on ad hoc basis with effect from 28.12.1985.

Submission of Petitioner''s counsel is that by the order dated 24.7.2002, the Petitioner was regularised with effect from same date i.e., 24.8.2002. Further submission is that the Petitioner has been placed in the seniority list over and above the opposite party No. 3 and 4 but no arrears of salary has been paid and pay scale has also not been revised. Further submission is that the opposite party No. 3 and 4 have also not been removed from the promotional avenues.

So far as the submission of Petitioner''s counsel with regard to removal of opposite party No. 3 and 4 from the promotional avenues are concerned, we are of the view that keeping in view the fact that almost 20 years have passed, the promotional avenues of the opposite party No. 3 and 4 should not be disturbed more so, when the Petitioner has been placed over and above the opposite party No. 3 and 4 in the seniority list. Accordingly, Petitioner''s prayer to that extent, is rejected.

So far as the Petitioner''s submission with regard to payment of arrears of salary and revision of pay scale is concerned, this aspect of the matter should have been dealt with by the State Government while making regular promotion in the year 2002. It has been submitted that the opposite party No. 3 and 4 have also been regularised with effect from 24.7.2002.

In view of the above, the Secretary of the Department is directed to look into the matter and take a decision with regard to revision of pay scale of the Petitioner and pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate decision. Liberty is given to the Petitioner to represent his cause afresh within a month from today before the Secretary of the Department. The grounds enumerated in the representation preferred by the Petitioner, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.