>' c ^)^^lioi IB 'EHE M&DHT& PB&DESH ADMIHISTE&TXVE TRIBUHAL BENCH EAIPOE APPLICANT RESPOSDEHTS O.A. N0. 01- 1999 DhariKshan prasad s/o Shrl Hiralal PrasaS aged 48yrs. AccoaBtant, Block Developaent Office Keshfcal Bistt. Bastar. VEBSUS ^<-State of Madhya Pradesh througb Secretary fievenue Departiiien-b Govt. of M.P. Mantralaya Vallabb Bbavan Bbopal ^2^" Coronissioner Bastar DlvisioB Jagdalpar Collector Bastar Jagadalpur M.P, 4. Shri H.B. J'oshi Anditor Keveue Office of tbe Comnissioaer Bastar Divlsion Jagdalpur aa ;a 5. Ramlal>Sinha Auditor Office of Coiani.ssi.inei' Bastar DJ-vision Bastar .-..1'^ :'S '*!. ^f ;<"i s i^\o ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH s BIL^POR SIN6LE SENCH : HOH'SLE SHRI M&NiHDRA SaOHAK SHmVASTAVA.J. RBSPONDEHT8 Writ Pctttio^ (Sino. 3861/2008 Dharikshan Prasad Versas State of Madhya Pradesh and ofhers ••is;^^^ ifflBSrSI Apnearaace: Shri S.K.'Thomas, oounsel for fhe petitiouer. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, counse! for the State. ORAfc ORDBR (F^ssed oa 21Et April 2010) Case of the petitioner is that though respondents granted the petitioner Proforma Promotion and Notionai Seniority on the post of Accountant w.e.f. 13/07/92, his ciaim for promotion has been arbitrariiy rejeoted vide order dated 23/02/98 (AnnexureA-1). 2. Petitioner was initialiy appointed as Lower Division Cierk on 27/07/1973. Accordinfl to the petitioner, though respondent No.5 was appointed on G4/0&'1976, yet In the gradation iist (Annexure A-2) he was placed beiow respondent No-5. The petitioner was then prornoted as Upper Division Clerk on 1/&"1985 and then as Accountant on 8/8/1994 whereas respondent No.5 was promoted as U.D.C. on 07/08/1884 and as Accountant on 14fs17-07-82. The gradation lists which were issued from time to time showed peritioner as junior to respondent No.5 and vide order dated 26/08/1998 (Annexure A13) respondent No.5 was promoted as Revenue Auditor as he was treated senior to the peijtioner. Two days thereafter, the order came to be issued on 28/8/'i998 (Annexure A-12) by' which flnaiiy accepting the petitioner's ciaim for seniority over and above respondent No.5 Ramlal Sinha, petitioner was piaced just beiow Shri S.C.Upadhyaya in the gradatiOn ilst by grantlng -2- him Profomia Promotion on the Dost of U.D.C. w.e.f. 06/08/1884 and on the post of Accountant w.e.f. 13/16-07-1992. This order was modifled vide another order dated 25/02/1M9 (Annexure A-14) by which the eariier order dated 28/8/1998 (Annexure A- 12) was rnodified granting Proforma Promotion to the petitioner on the post of Accountant w.e.f. 13/07/92. 3. The grievance of the petitioner, as piaced before this Court is that once he was granted seniority over and above respondent No.5 Ramlai Sinha vide order dated 28/08/98 as modified vide order dated 25/02/99, respondents were obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Revenue Auuitor because before issuance of order of grant of Profomia Promotion and seniority on 28i'08®8,promofion of respondent No.5 was made vide order dated 26/08/98. Aggrieved by inaction of the respondente, petttioner preferred representation which was rejected vide order dated 23/02/1998 (Annexure A-1). 4. Subrnission of learned counsei for the petitioner is that once respondents have accepteci petitioner's ciaim for grant of seniority over and above raspondent No.5 and also granted hirn Proforma Promotion and seniority for noiional fixaUon granting him prornotion as U.D.C. w.e.f. 6/08/1984 and as Accountant w.e.f. 13/07/92, petitioner was entitled to be considered for the promotion to the post of Revenua Auditor. it is aiso argued that the reason for non-consideration of petitioner's case for promotion as stateu' in impugned order dated 23f'02/1999 (Annexure A-1) are cleariy arbitrary- and unsustainabie. Two reasons assigned for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner are contrary to the records of service of the petitioner. Petittoner had passed accounts training which is evident from memo dated 08/12/19^ of the Principai, Government Accounts Training Schooi, Raipur, which shows that petitioner underwent training examination between the period from 23/10/1989 to 28/10/1989 and was declared passed. The other reason for rejecting petitioner's appiication was that the petitioner did not possess 3 yeare experience of working on the post of -^l IpiliSKSl -3- Accounteintwhichis illegal in as much as petitioner was aetuaiiy promoted onthe post of Accountant on 08/08/1994 and had completed 3 yeara of seroice on 08/08/1997. In any case, once petitioner was granted Proforma Promotion on tbe post of Accountant w.e.f. ia'07/1992 vkie order dated 25/02/1998 (Annexure A-14) which contains statement that the Notlonal Promotion wouid countfor proinotion to the next higher post, rejection of the petitioner's case was contrary to r pondent's own decision anci orders. 5. Per contra, submission of the iearned counsei for the respondents is tiiat at the tirne of initial appointment, as the petitioner was not possessing Hindl typing pass certificate, he couid not ciaim senioriry from the initiai date of appointment. He was reguiarized on the post of L.D.C. w.e.f. 20/09/1976 and for this reason peiitioner was placed beiow respondent No.5 in various gradation lists issued frorn time to tirne. it is aiso submitted that as the petitioner did not raise any objection to gradation list of 01/04/1^8, he couid not claim seniority ov'er and above respondent No.5. it is lastiy contended that the petitioner did not have experience of working on ihe post of Accountant for the required number of 3 years, he could not claim for promotion. 6. i have considered submission made by counsei for the parties and perused the record. 7. it is not in uispute that petitioner's claim for granting promonon and seniority on the post of U.D.C. and Accountant was considered and vide order dated 28/08/1968 (Annexure A-12) as modified by order dated 25/2/1999 (Annexure A-14), the ^etitioner was finaliy granted promotion and consequent seniority on tt»epost of First Grade Cierk w.e.f. 06/08/1894 and on the post of Accountant w.e.f. 13/07/1992. The aforesaid order cleariy stated that though arreare of pay would not be granted, date of notional promotion would be counted for the purpose of reckoning seniority jn the matter of next promotion. This ciearly meant that whiie considering petitioners eiigibiiity for being considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Auditor, his tfSSS seniority as Accountant was required to be counted from 13/07/1992 and not from 8/8/1994. Even if 8/8/94 is taken as the date from which the petitioner started working as Accountant, petitioner compieted 3 yeare of sen/ice on 8/8/97, The rejection of petitioner's claim on the ground that he had not compieted 3 years of service on ths post of Accountant therefore is not at ali sustainabie. From certificate dated 8/12/1989 (Annexure A-5), it is clear that the petitioner was deciared successfui in the examinaiion relating to accounts training. This aspect has not been denied by the respondents in their retum. The two grounds for rejecnon of petitioner's ciairn as stated in the irnpugned order dated 23/02/1999 (Annexure A- 1) are thus not made out. Contention of the iearned counsei for respondents ttiat pettioner oould not have claimed seniorifry because he did not submit any objection to gradation iist (Annexure R-1) showing position as on 01/04/1995 deseroes rejection in as much as iater on respondent themselves accepted petitioner's ciaim and passed ordars granting Proforma Promotion and consequent seniority oti the post of First Grade Cierk and Accountant, on 28/08i'1996 as modified by order dated 2W02/1999. 8. in the finai analjreis, this Court comes to the conciusion that rejecUon of petitioner's ciaim for consideration for promotion to the post or Revenue Auditor consequent upon granting Notionai Promotion and seniority, was iiiegai, aitiitrary and unsustainabie in iaw. Petitioner was entitied to be considered for promotion on tfie date respondent No.5 was considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Auditor. Consequently, the petition is aliowed in part. The impugned order dated 23*02/1 S'99 (Annexue A-1) is quashed. Respondenis are directed to convene review of D.P.C. as on the date on which respondent No.5, Ramiai Sinha was considered for promoflon to the post of Revenue Auditor leading to his promotion vide order dated 26/08/1998 (Annexure A-13). tf the petitioner is ottierwise found fit for promoilon upon consideration of his servlce records on the criteria laid down by the D.P.C., respondent shali grant him promotion w.e.f. ihe date respondent No.5 Ramiai Sinha was promoted as Revenue Auditor with the benefit Of seniorily and notionai pay fixation on the post of Revenue Auditor from ths date of promotfon, except arreare of pay. Kowever, all other benefits shaii be admissibla. However, grant of various benefits to the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court wfil not in any manner affect the promotion aiready granted to respondent No.5. The respondente shaii compiete ttie exercise of consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion within a period of 5 rnonths, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shail be no order as to costs. ~~—-—-_ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge VtfVB +1