ISTRAT .T.VE TRIBUNAL AFFLIGATION UNDER sECTIoN 19 9F ma Amm Ac'r,1985. o.A.No@2_ of 98. BEFORE Tm STATE MINISTBATIVE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH : RAIPUR. 3mm 1. Aggicgnt z Vinod numar PathaK, aged 53 years sen of .‘Late Shri K.G‘Pathak, $ub-Engmeer, Public Wows Department, at present in posted in Burg Sub-Bivision No.1, Division No.71, Burg Circle, Durg (Md?) 2. Ngn-An-aliggnyg : 1. State of Madhya Pradesh,through Principal Secretary, Public works Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhcpal. 2. Engineer-in-chier, Punlic Works Depar'vment Government of Madhya ?radesh. 3. Shri G.1\ajan at p sent Sub-Engineer : at ’Balod ivision (P.‘.D) Balod i District 3K sm-i p D Gupta, Sun-Emmeer, w.D. Natlonal Highway Division Sheepur (M ?) la Rzulaur LO (1 I .xueawf gwff iJ OF P C,b‘4”'$'°9qfi’) I» a) o/w kqlycm 4hrbuyh gm9b Manhmmyq Wmapal Q W 8 /N Office cf Bhavan, Bhop P ) @ 3. Particgl‘ars of the order against Whigh gnplicgtion is magg. H SINGLE BENCH: ’ w k u !GH COURT OF CHHATTisgARH ; BILAsPUR HONBLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN . Writ Petaion (s; Moms/2065 . Versus ' ‘ gssguogu‘rg omers Slate of ’ Madhya Pradesh and Posr FOR ORDER cN N Jk ocrgsgn‘ 2010 r ‘ l I ' H I I r (Manindra Mohan SdL Shrivastava‘ _ I: I > Judge .. V ‘ PgTmONgR K. P. Tiwari v yersus ‘x RESPONDENTS: Shte of Madhya others Writ Petition Pradesh and {SI Nog4s§l2005 PENT!ONER Vinod Kumar Pathak HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’hle Shrk'Manindra Mohan Shrivasmva. J. Writ Petition (S) N02453I2005 Present: Shri A. K. Pathak counsel for the pet'tioner. Shn’ V. V. S. Marthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER (Passed on M@ober, 2010) The above-stated writ petitions i.e.W.P.(S)No.2453 of 2005 and 2456 of 2005 are med by the petitioners, who are Sub Engineers. aggrieved by order dated 16-01-1998 (Annexure A-3), by which, they have suffered superoession because iheir juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The grounds raised in both the petitions are common and as one and the same order of superceesion is under challenge. both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. Petitioner- K. P. Tiwari in Writ Petition (S) No.2453 of 2005 and the petitioner-Vinod KumaraPathak in Writ Petition(S) No.2456 of 2005 filed their original application before the State Administrative Tribunal aggrieved by order dated 16-01-1998 (Annexure A-3), by which. their juniors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The above-stated petitions have come before this Court on transfer upon aboiition of the Tribunal. The petitioner- K. P. Tiwari in his petition has stated that by impugned order dated 16-01-1998, his juniors O. P. Shrivastava, A. R. Sarvate, C. L. Pandey and L. S. Khichi were PETITIONER K. P. Tiwari Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Madhya Ptadesh and others Writ Petition (S) N02456I2005 Vinod Kumar Pathak Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Madhya Pradesh and others promoted on the past of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner-Wnod Kumar Pathak has stated in his petition that by impugned order dated 16-01-1998 (Annexure A- 3), his juniors C. K. Rajah, S. N. shrivashva, H. C. Gupta and P. D. Guph were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer. In both the petitions, petitioners later on moved an application for deleting the name of private respondents. who were juniors to them, and were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and for impleadment of state of Chhattisgarh as a party. vide order dated 02-08-2002, their applications were allowed. (2) Case of the petitioners are that though their service records are clean and unblemish and according to them, they have earned excellent gradings, by the impugned order, persons (Sub Engineers) junior to them, have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. lt is the case of the petitioners in both the petitions that no adverse remark was ever communicated to them nor any punishment has been imposed so as to warrant their supercession by respective juniors. (3) lt is not disputed by the respondents that in view of the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules namely Madhya Pradesh Public Works Engineering (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules. 1969 (hereinafter referr‘ed to as “the Rules of 1969”). the criteria for promotion as laid down in Rule 15 is based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to the seniority. The petitioners in their respectiVe petitions have categorically stated that their service record is excellent and meritorious and there are no adverse remarks or punishment. (4) Even though, repeated opportunities'Were granted by the Tribunal and then by this Court to the respondent-State to submit their repiy, no retum has been tiled except preliminary submissions tiled by the respondent No.4/State of Chhattisgath in W.P.(S) No.2456 of 2005 wherein it has been stated that vide order dated 11-08-2003. petitioners-Vinod Kumar Pathak and K.P. Tiwari have been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis from the date of order. The said order is placed on record as Annexare R-1. Even though, repeated opportunities were granted to the respondents, no return has been filed either by the State of MP. or by the Slate of Chhattisgarh to place on record any material to iustify superoession of both the petitioners. From the avermena made in both the petitions, it is clear that the Sub Engineers; who are placed below them in the gradation list. have been promoted as Assistant Engineer vide impugned order dated 16-01-1998 whereas the petitioners were promoted vide order dated 11-08-2003 (Annexure R-1) tiled along with the preliminary submissions by the respondent No.4/State of Chhattisgarh in W.P.(S)No.2456 of 2005. Even records of departmental promotion committee have not been produced before this Court. The averments made in both the petitions therefore cannot be disputed and it is to be held that eventhough. the petitioners record were unblemish and excellent and no adverse remark was ever communicated to them. they have suEered supercession. Thus. the respondents have failed to demonshate that the supercession of the petitioners was justified. The criteria for promotion as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969 are merit cum seniority. The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the juniors of the petitioners were more meritorious then the petitioners. t5) The respondent No.4l§tate of Chhattisgarh is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners as on the date their cases were considered along with their juniors for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer, leading to issuance of order dated 16-01 -1 998, (Annexure A-3). The case of the petitioners shall be considered by a duly constituted departmental promotion committee in accordance with the relevant Ruies of 1969 as atso in accordance with the 4 ' criteria of merit-cum-seniority laid down in the rules. ln case, the petitioners are found m. they shall be granted promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date their respective juniors were promoted vide order dated 16- 01-1998 with all consequential benents of seniority. notional pay fixation and other claims including retiral dues. (6) in View of foregoing, both the petitions i.e.W.P.(S)No.2453 of 2005 and 2456 of 2005 are allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as to cost. ‘ ‘ Sd/— i rManindra Mohan Shrivastava ‘ Judge