Ram Sewak Singh vs State Of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Patraul in Irrigation Department, State of Uttar Pradesh and posted at Barabanki in the office of Executive Engineer-XI. Subsequently, on 01.05.1977, thereafter transferred to Sitapur while he was working as Patraul, the said post was redesignated as Seenchpal. In the month of May, 1989, a final seniority list has been issued in respect to the persons who were working on the post of Seenchpal, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition in respect of the persons who are were working on the post of Seenchpal under Executive Enggineer, Sitapur Division Sharda Sahayak, Division XI, Sitapur. In the said seniority list name of the petitioner fined place at serial No. 58.

Further as per the Government Order, the appellate authority passed an order thereby giving the selection grade/time scale who are working on the post of Seenchpal in the department after completion of six years satisfactory services, but the same has not been given to the petitioner, on the other hand, similarly situated/juniors to the petitioner have been given the said benefit. In this regard pleading has been made in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, on reproduction the same reads as under:

S/Sri Shalendra kuamr

Ram Lakhan Verma

Surendra Pal Misra

Khem Karan Lal

Ram Sharan

Madan Murari

Ram Sewak Misra

Narendra Kumar

Persons at serial No. 7 and 8, Sri Ram Sewak Misra and Narendra Kumar are junior to the petitioner.

In view of the abovesaid facts, the petitioner submitted a representation to the O.P. No. 3 for redressal for his grievances. However, no heed has been paid, as such the present writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:

i) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to give the promotion scale of Rs. 1200 to 2040 to the petitioner with effect from 1.5.1990, i.e. the date when juniors to the petitioner were given the said scale, and pay to him arrears thereof so far.

ii) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to determine the petitioner''s seniority according to the date of his joining of service, i.e. 10.05.1972 and accordingly place him at appropriate place in the seniority list (s) contained in the Anneuxre No. 2 and 3.

Thereafter, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents inter alia taking the stand that as the petitioner''s services is not satisfactory for the last six years, he has been awarded adverse entry to his character roll (pleading in this regard has been made in para No. 19 of the counter affidavit), so the selection grade/time scale has not been provided tohim.

In rebuttal, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said adverse entry was never communicated to the petitioner, as such the same cannot be taken as a ground from denying/giving the selection grade/time scale to him. In support of the said fact, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , in para No. 17 held as under:-

The principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the nonissuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant. The chain of reaction began with the adverse report and the infirmity in the link of causation is that no one has yet decided whether that report was justified. We cannot speculate, in the absence of a proper pleading, whether the appellant was not found suitable otherwise, that is to say, for reasons other than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity certificate to him.

In view of the abovesaid facts and after hearing the learned counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner''s case is to be reconsidered in the light of the judgment given by the Apex Court in respect to the grant of selection grade/time scale. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to O.P. No. 3/Executive Engineer, Sitapur Division, Sharda Nahar, Irrigation Department, Sitapur within two weeks from today in respect to his grievances which he has raised in the present writ petition annexing all relevant documents and materials in support of his case and after receiving the same, the O.P. No. 3 shall consider and dispose of by way of speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks thereafter.