r IN^TI-lEhllGHGOURT-OFJUDIGATURECHHATnSGARH —**• ATBtL.ASRUR W.P.No^-SI^ / 2005 petittaneF;f^€-<^ ^s^ yff^SRO 1) 2) P.R.Narang, S/o S.I-.Narang, Aged about 51 years,R/o C-288, Shailendra Nagrar, Raipur(CG) VCFSUS State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Awas Evam Pariyawaran Vibhag, DKSBhawan, Raipur(C.G.) The Raipur Development Authority - Through its Ghief Executiye Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur 3) D.S.Paroha, Executive Engineer, Raipur DevelopmentAuthbrity, Raipur (G.G.) './'f.^g./:, "-..'•",: 1iA/F?IWET!li!l@N^NE3ER^I»i©l-E^27QRTHE %:yi%K^fflSN^'ri"i-Ljg-tON^ •^»®^^ •BB;w. SSSSWSS31 SBBsSiSSU AT^^ ^-..l^ / '--'••—._\~-—' HIGH COURT OF-CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PEimONER WRITPETmONNo. 2816 of2005 P.K. Naraag RESPONDENTS Versus StateofChhattisgarh&Others -«- ^. •fn Postfbrpronbuaeementofjudgment&OTderbD.'4..dayofNQvember;2QlQ. Sd/- ^attehK.Ag"ihotn ^: ^ Judge .^' \.: HIGHCOURT OF.CHHATTISGARII:_BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 2816 of 2005 P.R. Narang Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Wrifpetition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Beneh : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriP.R. Patarikar,Advocate forthepetitioner, Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondent No.3. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Delivered on this ?2- day ofNovember, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondeflt authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Chief Engineer by treating his seniority as Assistant Engineerw.e./ 27.05.1980. The petitioner also challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 29.06.2006 (Aimexure P/12), by amendment ordered by this Court on 08.11.2006, bywhich the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that ttle petitioner, after completing his B.E. (Civil) in the year 1978, entered into service as Jumor Engineer on 19.10.1979 (Annexure P/l)iinthe Raipur Development Authority (for short "the RDA"). The; State Govemment, by order dated 27.05.1980 (Aimexure P/2), took a "^ 'i^g-sfss2!^ S '^^-;:^1^1:'''"~'^ ^? ^ »r~ 1?^-. '.'III decision to ,freat all the graduate Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers, and diploma holders as Sub-Engineers. The local bodies of fhe Stafe Govemment adapted the aforesaid decision of the Goveniment. The RDA, by its resolution dated 04.09.1981 (AnneXure P/3), resolved to abolish the post of Junior Engineer and t6 ha)fe the post ofAssistant Engmeer and Sub-Engineer by fixing the cut-off date to fhe said nomencla.tureas 27.05.1980. Thereafter, the order was passed on 10.09.1981 (AimexureP/4)treatmg the petitioner as AssiStant Engineer. According to the petitioner, the respondent Na3 was appomted as Assistaiit Engmeer in the RDA on 28.05.1980 by direct recruitment, wliereas the petitioner. was working as Assistant Engineer w.e./ 27.05.1980. Thus, th& petidorier is semorto the respondent No. 3. By order dated 31.12.1987 (ABnexure P/5), the respondents No. 3 as well as the petitioner were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. After formation of the new State ofCHhattisgarh, the KDA merged with the Municipal Corporation. However, again fhe RDA was revived andthe same is in existence, atpresent. Aecording to the petitkmer, m viewbffhecireutardated 02.05.2Q01 (Aonexure P/6), thereisnopoStofCluefEtfgmfierintheRDA.Despitef^ faet, on 02.06.2005 CAnnexureP/7) the State Govenunent constituteU a Departmental Promotion Committee (/br short "DPC") to consider the case ofthe caildidates for promotingitheffl zs:' ^ i'fl> ^•' on the post of ChiefErigineer iil the RDA. The authonties of fhe RDA^are considering ths candidature of the resgotident No,3 for {MOBKttiori tb the pdst of Chief Engineey on fhe ground that the Tesp6ndent . 3 was appomtedtotheROstofAss 28.0&1988 ^ereas the petitioner^^ ^ Engineer 27.05.1980, butthsfbnnaloi'der^^^w 10.Q9.1981. TherespJondentNo. 3 is^politically itifhientialpCT^ andto give unflue adyanfage to Ihe respondentNp. 3, Ihe authorities offheRDAhadwronglyinterpl^diEhesenior^Q^ Being aggrieved tey te aforesaid actaMi oftttefi^ mads se^al repres tatKmS to 1te respond^^^ yielded tio result. Thus, ftuspetidon. Shn Patankar, leanied counsel appearing ^ submft that tlw mterpretation o¥;fhe respofident No.2 to place the petitiotler below the respondent Nb. 3, when indisputably, the petitioner becatN Assistant Sngmeer w.e^ 2^^ respondefflt TSIo^ S jomed/ ihe service as; Assistaiit Engineer dn 28.05.1980, was -wrong and unsustainable in law. Now, the respcmdentNo/3 isbeingconsMleredforappomtnienta tothepostofChrefBngmeer.Ths^etiQ&oftheG^ istiGntrar^tatheweUsettfe^^ lOofth&ehhattisgarhCivilSer<aces(GeneralCohditiofr6fService) 'Sj^,t96t(hereincffterreferredte{w'the^es,lf>6ry ^1^Kules,;l96l clearly lays'dowB that the^^^^^^ :!".^ eii^l(^eistob&couirted£Eofflfhedate,as^ ^ \ -^ '<, 7. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, leamed connsel appeaang for the respoiident No. 2-RDA would submit that there is no dispute on the faets that the respondent No. 3 was junior to fhe petitioner as the respondent No. 3 became a member of the service as Assistant Engineer oii 28.05.2008 when admittedly tUe petifioner who was working as Junior Eilgineer beeame Assistant Engirieer with effect from 27.05.1980. The iinpugnedorderdated 29.06.2006 (Annexure P/12) deserves to be quashed Qri the ground that the State Gtivemmerit has wrongly granted semority to the petitibner after the respondent No. 3. By orderdated 10.09.1981, thepetitioner was appointed as Assista.ntEngineerfi'om 27.05.1980. Thepetitionerisentitledto seniority w.e^' 27.05.1980 asbyvirtueofchangeofthecadrefiwn^ Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, he became AssiStant Engmeerou 27.05.1980. - Shri P.S.Koshy, leamed counsel appearing fbr fhe respondeirt No. 3, ontheotherhand,w6uldsubmitthatfhepetiti0nereanbefreatedas AssistantEngineerw.e./ 10.09.1981 only as the order granting him seniority was passed on 10.09.1981. Thgreafter, the respondent No. 3 has been promoted on the post of Execytive Engmeer on 31.12.1987. The present writ petition is h<^ maintamable ^ groundoflachesand delay.as thefinatgradatf(mlisf,as^^o 01.07.1995 waspuhlishedon 29!,12.1998(AimexureR/3-3), which clearlyshowslherespandentlSI().3stserialNo.l6andthepeti(iongr at serial No. 117. The petttioner has iiot chQsert to ehallenge th^ seniority Kst immediately, aad has filedlhepresentpetitiDn only on a".A '<* ^. K:l'^8BSte"i ^^^BA^^ f^ '^tvS^y ^ X 30.06.2005. Thereisnofixplaaationfbrtheinordinatedelayin quesfioning fBe gradation Ust which was circulated on 29.12.1998. Thus, the petition deserves to he Hismissed on the ground oflacUes antfflelay. Shri KosUy relres on a decision ofthe Suprenie-C'ourt in MJ^ldnisamy^ Qthersv A.Krfshnan& Others . 8. ; The respondenf No. 3 Kad joined as directTecruiton 28.05.1980 as Assistant Engineer. T^e petttionerwas worfcing as Jumor Engineer w.fe^ 19.10^1979 andbyvirtue bfthe Gircular for change pfcadre, the petitioner was graated ehangeofcadreoii 27.05.198D by subsequerit final order dated 10:09.1981.. Thus, the ^etitioner was rightly grante<fc seniprity after resjpbndent Nd. 3. Shn KosUy would further submtf fhat the petitionei' was not boriMn ffie service before 10.09.1981. Thus,hecaniKitclamfSemontyasAssistaiitEngu^ •w.ef. 27.05.1989. In support of his contention, he ,relies on a decision Ofthe Supreme Court in i4»j;a?7ee?SmgK&Othersv. Devi Ratdn&Others^ - ,1... .! ;',,..' ..•••: • ,,, '. 9. Heard leamed counset appeaFing fbr ^ the parties, perused the pleadingsanddoeumentsappendedthereto. 10. Tliei-e is ilo dispute that the seniority list as on 01.07.1995 was .circulate^ vide arder dated 29.12.1998^^^ -flr" .'• •'- " .': ^ •'..^ ' " ''."i •-•'.•.' .' ;'..':^'':1-:-..'"'"'/ ^ ^ ....:.'...::.:'-'.'.. "•. /'. '- .•'.'..'"' :.' .:.... ..'•' •..' •'•'.^- '• " '•• onthepostofAssistantErlgineerm^eDfthegetitioneTirasshowH as 27;05.1S80 and. in ;case of flie respondtent No. 3, the date of joining as AsSistant Engineer was shQwn as 28,05.1980. Even th|e ''(2009) 6SGC 428 2 (2010)1 SCC 417 /'•y"'-^ tAilhT-?; ei, '•<££] :^ ^Sci ^ (V/ \ i1' 11 date ofprdmotion to the post ofExecutiYe Engineers in bofh the easeswas 31.12.1987 and as such, contention ofthe respondent No. 3 fhat the petitioner joined the post of Assistant Engineer •w.e.f. 27.08.1980 videcirculardated 10.09.1981 does .not merit acceptanGe. Though, in fhe gradation list, fhe respondent No. 3 was place at serial No. 16 and the petitioner was placed at serial Nb. 17, it appears that the same was done on aGCQuiit of date of birth wlierein the date ofjoming was clearly indicated, as aforestated in bofhthe cases. Rule 10 oftheRules, 1961 provides for maintenaiiGe ofthe gradation list when admittedly, the petitionerjoinedthepost of Assistant Engineer, his placement at serial No. 17 after the respondent No. 3 on the basis of date of birfh caimot be held as properandjustified. . In respect ofthe contention ofthe respondent NQ. 3, that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches, it is fouhd fliat tttere was no confusion in respect ofthe date of appointment as Assistant Engmeer even in the gradation list and iurther the promotion of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 on the post of Executive Engineer. Thus, it was not necessary to GhaBenge the same fbr their placeirient in the gradation list. Th® petitioner made an applieation/representation on 13.05.20D5 fbr correction of his placement vis-a-vis respondent No. 3, which was duly considered and rejected by order dated 29.06.2006 (Anne^ure P/12). The said prder has been impugned in this petitkin. Thus, the r:e a (8i "X ^ <1/: J?:-i: ¥';..: . ^':- !"rr ..' contention offhe respondent No. 3 (hat on the ground oflaches and inordmate delay, tfaispetition may be dismissed,is rejected. 12. Inrespect of the third contention thatthe petitioner was not bom in service on 27.05.1980, thusinno event, fhe same can be cbnsidered the date for granting seniority to the petitioner, on perusal of the orderdated 10.09.1981 (Annexure P/4), it is elearly fouridthat the Junior Engineers were promoted as Assistant Engineet w.e.f the date, the cadre of Junior Engineer came t6 an end. It is an admitted fact that by order dated 27.05.1980 (Annexure P/2), the post of Junior Engineer was abolished aad the graduate Enguieers were directed to be treated as Assistant Engineers with immediate effect. On cdmbined reading of the circular dated 27.05.1980 (Annexure P/2)and the subsequent orderdated 10.09.1981 (AnnexureP/4),it is evident that the petitioner was bom in the service asAssistant Engineeron 27.05.1980, one daybeforethe respondentNo.3jomed the serviee as Assistaiit Engineer T.e. QH 28.07.1980. Thus, the respondent No. 3 was bom in serviee on 28.05.1980 and not before that and the petitioner was already ih service when therespondent Nb. 3jomedthe service. 13. The ratio with regard to inordinate unexplained delay as held by tHe SupremeCourtinM/>a/a»Ma/»yisnotapplicabIetothefactsofffi case onhand, as there as n6 inordinate delay as arepreseritatioilwas w !a J 'fi 3 i'ss^'/ '.."^ i.S£S'Ky' l^ \ 14. 15. 16. .» made to the respondent authorities for correction of the gradation list, thesame was considered and rejected by reasoned order and the petitioner, thereafter has iiiunediately sought amendment of the prayer in the petition, unpugning the order dated 29.06.2006 (Annexure P/12), which was granted on 08.11.2006. Thus, this petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of unexplamed inordinate delay. The case of Amarjeet Singh relied on by the respondent No. 3 is also not applicable to the facts ofthe case inhandas ithasbeen held that the petitioner was bom in service of Assistant Engmeer on 27.05.1980 and the respondent was bom in service one day thereafterby direetrecruifmenti.e. on 28.05.1980. This is not a case wherein the petitioner was workirig as Junior Engirieer till 10.9.1981 and by orderdated 10.9.1981 he was granted promotion on fhe post ofAssistantEngineerw.e.f. 27.5.1980. Inthe case on hand, the petitioner became Assistant Engineer immediately on 27.5.1980 whenthecadreofjuniorEngineers was closed and all graduate Engineers were converted and started working as Assistant Engineers. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 29.06.2006 (Annexure P/12) is quashed. In view ofthe interim order granted on 16.11.2005, it appears that no Departmental Promotion Committee meeting has been held till date, thus, the respondent autfaorities are directed to consider the case ofthe petitioner as well -"k -ifca^agsi-- ^- as the respondent No. 3 for selectidn and promotion on the post of ChiefEilgineer, in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order astocosts. Sd/- ^^Agnibotn JSatistt"" ^r"- Judge it ^! K ••\