-f17 \ Before the Honsble N.p..State 4dm inistrative Tribunal ^t^Rai^^r ^t^jlQ^ O..A. No. /2000 Ka lya n Si ngh Dhruw Helper, Regional Office, Dy < Director, Geology & lyii ni ng Bilaspur (chha ttisgarh) ^ ^ "7^3@^^ f:fhd io(S3iy^^^^^^^^vMW ^..c^^^p-^ . ^^ - t)^ Shn^^J- for f^gictw, M. P. State ^riRi. Tflibtmaf, RAI^UR. 1 ^plica nt<i 5. ^L x^— Govt.of Msdhya pradesh Govt.of chhattisg^rh Through Secretery to Govt. Ni nera 1 Resources Departma'nt ntralaya Bhopal/Raipur. 'Ihe Dlrector Geol-ogy & Minlng,Raipur Regiona 1 H ead Directorate of Geology & Mi m'ng Regional Office Bilaspur. Shri shobh aran Raa, Helper Dlrecfcorate of Geology & Min ing —- Non ^ppllcant's Regional Office BUaspur. Applica tioQ_ Under__Sect;ipn__l_9 of the M_.P. Adail.nis-tratiye.Tribunal Act 1' ^Fi'.1 3-^t ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGAJRH, BILASPUR SINGLB BBNCH : HON'BLB SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN 8HRIVASTAVA,J. Writ Petition (81 No. 3482/2005 PETITIONER Kalyaa Smgh Dhruw Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh and others ORDER POST ON^^JANUARY. 2010 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude ';^?5^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLB BBNCH : HON»BLESHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVA8TAVA.J. Writ Petition (81 No.3482/2005 PBTITIONBR RB8PONDBNT8 Kalyaa Singh Dhraw Versus Gk?vt, of Madhya Pradesh aad others Appearaace: Shri Jitendra PaH, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Siagh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 2 to 4. None for respondent No,5. ORDBR (Passed on 13-.01.2010) 1, Instaat petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved on account of his supersession on account of proniotion of his juuior-respondent No.5. Grievaiice of fhe petitioner is fhat he is not beiag considered by rcspoadents for proinotion. 2. The case of fhe petitioner is fhat he was appoiated as Helper ia the pay-scale ofRs. 800 - - - 1225 on probation for a period of2 years vide order ofAnnexure A-2 dated 25.8.1989 passed by fhe Director, Geology & Minmg, Madhya Pradesh, Raipur, In fhe gradation Ust of Annexure A-3 dated 30th October 1993 published by the Director, Geology &. Miamg showmg seniority position as on 1.4,1992, fhe petitioner was placed at serial No. 40., whereas fhe respondent No.5 was placed at .^^ '^^ iS- ^ 1 ^^ ! y / ^..;iFsi'^' -2- r" rz serial No.41 beiag junior to him. However, when gradation Mst was again issued on 11.12.1998 (Annexurc A-4) showiag seniority position as on 1,4.1998, respondent No.5 was placed at serial No.27 of the confirmed exnployees, whereas fhe naine of the petitioner was shown at serial No.l oftenxporary eniployees, Respondent No.5 was promoted as Assistant DrUler in the pay-scale of Rs.3050—4590vide order of Annexure A-l dated 2.6.1998 issued by fhe Director, Geology & Mining. Aggrieved on account of his delayed confinnation and consequent supersession, the petitioner represented his grievaace vide representation dated 6,11.1999 foUowed by several representations. FmaUy, the Director, Geology & Minmg, Raipiir, considered fhe representation of the petitioner and issued aa order on 22.1.2000 by which the petitioner was graated seniority over and above respondent No,5 and ordered to ainend seniority Ust. Thereafter, fhe petitioner inade representation 6n 25.7,2000 and 6,9,2000 to graiit him promotion and placing over aad above respondent No.5 which reiaained ui vein leading to filmg offhe instant petition, 3, Petitioner has fhus claimed that once he has been granted seaiority over aad above the respondent No.5, fhe respondents ought to have considered his case for promotion from due date aad promote hiin to the next higher post aad also graat him aU consequcntial benefits of pay aad seniority w.e,f 2,6.1998 ie, fhe date from which his junior- respondent No,5 is promoted. 4. In fhe retum. filed by fhe respondents, contesting fhe clairBi of the petitioner, all that has been stated is that m view of delay caused m -3- 3s^—'^ issuing order of confirmation of fhe petitioner, after completion of period of probation, fhe respondent No,5 was promoted aiid necessary steps have been taken aad there was no malafide, It has been stated fhat fhe petition may be dismissed so fhat the department may proceed to pass aa order ofconfirmation offhe peUtioner. 5, Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner placiag reliaace on fhe decision of Supreme Court ia fhe cases of State of Haryaaa & others Vs. Rameshwar Dass. 2009 (7t SCC 400 ; State of Kerla and otheirs Vs. B.K. Bhaskaram PiUai, 2007 (6) 8CC S24; Dr. Ms O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supo.t SCC 688; State of Tripura and others Vs. K.K. Rov, 2004 (91 SCC 65 has contended that an employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. Leanied counsel for the petitioner submits that as the date of confirmation was wrongly fixed resultmg in supersession on account of proinotion of his jiinior- respondeut No.5 vide order dated 2.6. 1998, he is entiUed for promotion froin fhe date his junior was proinoted with aU consequential benefits aad also with mterest. 6. From fhe pleadiags offhe parties aiid material available on record, it is manifesUy clear that fhe petitioner was iUegatly deprived of his right of beiag considered for proniotion to fhe next higher post of Assistaat Driller on account of the fact fhat he was confirmed belatedly, This is clear froin fhe order dated 22.1.2000 (Annexure A-11) ia which it has been recorded fhat fhe petitioner is senior to respondent No.5 aad he successfully completed period ofprobation. The said order also records fhat no decision could be taken ia tmie wifh. regard to confiirmation of the petitioner an.d fhough order dated 19.7.1994 regarditig successful coiapleUon of period of probation was passed, erroneously he was r'";" -4- ^3- ^— declared confirmed w.e.f. 1.12.1998 vide oider dated 6.2.1999. Vide aforesaid order dated 22.1.2000, the date ofconfirmation was declared as 4,10.1993 iastead of 1.12.1998 aad his seniorily was fixed at serial No.87 above respondent No,5 as iadicated ia fhe order 27.1.1994. By fhe said order, it was also directed that seniority Ust be appropriately niodified aad decision wifh regard to promotion of fhe petitioner be also taken. 7, It is thus clear fhat because of illegal fixatiofi of the date of confiraaatioa, fhe petitioner could not be considered for proiaotion when his junior persou was considered aad pronioted vide order dated 2.6.1998, Though fhe respondent have stated ia fheir retiun regarding cousideration which was filed on 23.6.2001 before fhe Tribunal, petitioner submitted that tiU date promotion has not been graated, Once respondents adniitted fhat due to iUegal j&xation of fhe date of coufirmation, petitioner could not be considered for promotion, tfaey are obUged to consider fhe case of fhe petitioner for promotion to fhe post of Assistaat DriUer as on fhe date his junior- rcspondent No,5 was considered for proinotion, 8. This petition is fherefore allowed. Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4/State arc directed to cousider the case offhe petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant DrUler as on fhe date his junior respondent No,5 was considered aad pronioted, by coustitiiting a Departinental Promotion Committee. After considering fhe case of the petitloner ia accordaace with rules, tfhe is found fit for promotion, respondents shaU graat him proniotion on the post of Assistant DriUer froin fhe date his jzinior- respoadent No.5 was pronioted wiih all consequential benefits. f€. l^ i 'l. ^.. J / "%, t|3<^ Sinha - 5 - ^-^ ^- 9. The aforcsaid directions shaU be compUed with by fhe rcspondents wifhia a reasonable tune not exceediag 6 nionths fironi the date of production ofcopy offhis order. 10. No order as to cost Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude