SBCWP1033/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1033/1997 {Rajesh Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another} Date of Order ::: 01.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Vigyan Shah, Counsel for petitioner Shri Hemant Mathur, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated 07.12.1995 by which his representation for stepping up of his pay at par with pay of Shri Dayanand Chawla, has been rejected. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that petitioner was appointed as Junior Draftsman in the service of the respondents. He was promoted to the post of Senior Draftsman some time in the year 1967 along-with Shri Dayanand Chawla and Shri Jaswant Rai Garg. All the three were reverted to the post of Junior Draftsman vide SBCWP1033/1997 // 2 // order dated 02.05.1967; out of them, except him, two were again promoted vide order dated 12.07.1971. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner as well as Shri Jaswant Rai Garg and Dayanand Chawla were confirmed on the post of Senior Draftsman vide order dated 01.03.1980, in which name of petitioner appeared at Serial No.18, whereas name of Jaswant Rai Garg appeared at Serial No.12 and that of Dayanand Chawla at Serial No.26. Learned counsel submitted that, in that order, their names appeared as per their seniority. Although, all the three were confirmed with effect from 01.03.1980. The learned counsel submitted that Jaswant Rai Garg, who was senior to Dayanand Chawla, represented the respondents that since Shri Dayanand Chawla was granted higher pay scale, his pay should also be stepped up; his representation was accepted and the Superintending Engineer-cum-TA to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur, vide order dated 16.06.1993 ordered stepping up his pay at par with that of Shri Dayanand Chawla. Learned counsel submitted that since SBCWP1033/1997 // 3 // in the confirmation order dated 21.08.1990 name of petitioner appeared at Serial No.18 and that of Shri Dayanand Chawla at Serial No.26, he should be taken as senior to him and his pay also should have been stepped up. Shri Hemant Mathur, learned counsel for respondents, opposed the writ petition and denied that petitioner was senior to Shri Dayanand Chawla. It is submitted that in the seniority list dated 13.12.1989 name of petitioner finds place at Serial No.19 whereas name of Shri Dayanand Chawla figures at Serial No.6. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Draftsman in the year 1967 on ad hoc basis but as the post of Senior Draftsman was abolished in the Divisional Office as such the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Draftsman by order dated 02.05.1967. Thereafter again some time in the year 1971 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Draftsman whereas Shri Dayanand Chawla was all along working on the post of Senior Draftsman right from 09.01.1967 and was not reverted to the post of Junior Draftsman. It has been denied that Shri Dayanand Chawla was SBCWP1033/1997 // 4 // junior to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that Shri Jaswant Rai Garg was senior to Shri Dayanand Chawla and, as such, his pay fixation was rightly made vide order dated 16.06.1993 as per the provisions of the relevant Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, referred to two documents Annexure-5 and 6 and submitted that the petitioner was shown at Serial No.32 in the same seniority-list issued by the respondent on 07.11.1977, whereas name of Shri Dayanand Chawla stood at Serial No.42 therein. When pointedly asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show pleading to this effect in the memo of writ petition. He relied on the Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967, in order to show that if the date of confirmation is same, then the date of substantive appointment is to be taken as basis of seniority required for promotion. When pointedly asked, he could not point out the date of petitioner's appointment as Draftsman and submitted that initially in the year 1967 petitioner was SBCWP1033/1997 // 5 // promoted as Senior Draftsman, though he states that 12.07.1971 was the date when he was again promoted whereas the respondents submitted that Shri Dayanand Chawla was never reverted ever since he was promoted on the post of Senior Draftsman in 1967 whereas the petitioner was reverted because of abolition of post of Senior Draftsman in Divisional Office. I, therefore, do not find any merit in his claim on the question of seniority. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//