State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Mohan Chandra Joshi

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The State of Uttarakhand has challenged the legality of the order dated 18.03.2020, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal (‘the

learned Tribunal’ for short), whereby the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Chandra Joshi, and had

directed the State to grant notional promotion to him on the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 24.02.2016, instead of 13.10.2017; the learned Tribunal had also

directed the State to grant similar benefits of promotion/pay scale of Rs.7600/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 29.12.016. The said notional promotion and the

benefit of pay-scale were to be granted within a period of four months from the date of the said order.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the claim petition filed by Mr. Mohan Chandra Joshi.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.11.1980, Mr. Joshi was appointed as C.T. Grade Teacher. In 1982, he was upgraded as L.T. Grade by

the Director, Secondary Education. On 19.09.2007, he was promoted as Lecturer (Economics); he was posted at the Government Inter College,

Dhaina, District Bageshwar.

According to the petitioner, a final seniority list was duly published. According to the seniority list, while the petitioner’s name figured at Sl.

No.3635, the name of his junior, Mr. Ghanshyam Prasad Pant figured at Sl. No.3691. Moreover, according to the petitioner, a wrong date of birth was

recorded in his service records. His date of birth was incorrectly shown as 28.05.1955, whereas his actual date of birth was 15.11.1957. Once this

mistake was pointed out by the petitioner to the department, the department agreed in conceded that a wrong date of birth had been recorded in the

service records of the petitioner. Consequently, his date of birth was corrected as 15.11.1957. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, on 24.02.2016,

Mr. Ghanshyam Prasad Pant, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted as a Headmaster. Inadvertently, taking the date of birth of the petitioner

as 28.05.1955 and under the impression that by 24.02.2016, the petitioner would have retired, he was denied the promotion to the post of Headmaster.

It is only when his date of birth was corrected, that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster on 13.10.2017.

Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the denial of promotion and by the denial of the rightful pay-scale, he filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition

(S/B) No.141 of 2019, before this Court. However, by order dated 23.04.2019, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal.

Consequently, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. As mentioned hereinabove, by the impugned order dated 18.03.2020, the

learned Tribunal granted the relief to the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Mr. Anil K. Bisht, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, has vehemently pleaded that the petitioner was denied his

promotion to the post of Headmaster on 24.02.2016, as his date of birth was shown as 28.05.1955. Moreover, the petitioner did not raise any

grievance immediately after the juniors were promoted. It is only subsequently that he raised these pleas. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that

the order passed by the learned Tribunal is legally unsustainable. Hence, the said order deserves to be set-aside by this Court.

Heard Mr. Anil K. Bisht, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the impugned order.

Admittedly, it is the State that had conceded that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as 28.05.1955, whereas his actual date of

birth was 15.11.1957. Once the mistake was discovered by the State, the State was legally bound to give the benefit to the petitioner rather than

denying the benefit to him. Even if, the juniors were promoted on 24.02.2016, the State, as a model employer, should have restored the petitioner to his

original position i.e. by granting notional promotion to the petitioner on the post of Headmaster and by granting the rightful pay-scale to the petitioner.

However, the State failed to carry out its duty towards its employee. Therefore, the State has acted in the most unfair and unreasonable manner.

Merely because the petitioner has not raised his voice immediately after the promotion was given to Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Pant, is no reason to

deny him the benefits which accrue to him in accordance with law. It is these aspects which have been noticed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore,

this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

For the reasons stated aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in this petition; the same is, hereby, dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands rejected.