CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.392 OF 2001 ----- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- DINA NATH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE JAI NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, PEON IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO.1, DHANBAD, MOHALLA AND POST OFFICE- HARIHARPUR, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT-DHANBAD. …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA, THROUGH VICE-CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, DHANBAD. 3. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 5. JAIRAM YADAV, SON OF DOMAN YADAV, DAFTARI, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, DHANBAD. 6. NAGESHWAR YADAV, SON OF NOT KNOWN, AT PRESENT SECRETARY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1 DHANBAD ….RESPONDENTS ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Union of India (Respondents 1 to 3):Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, CGC ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL *** S.K.Katriar & K.K.Mandal,JJ. Respondent no. 4 has not entered appearance in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.04.2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 702 of 1997(Dina Nath Choudhary Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the writ petitioner, has been 2 dismissed, and the order of the authorities promoting respondent no.5 herein from the post of Peon to that of Daftari, has been upheld. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was appointed as a Chaukidar in the office of the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal- cum Labour Court No.1, Calcutta. He was confirmed as a Chaukidar on 01.12.1984. Respondent no.5 was appointed as a Peon in the office of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Dhanbad, on 27.05.1983, was made quasi permanent on 27.05.1986, and was made permanent on 27.11.1986. The petitioner had submitted his application for transfer to Dhanbad office through the Ministry of Labour. His request transfer was allowed, and he joined Dhanbad office on 06.01.1988. It further appears that the question of promotion to the post of Daftari had arisen in Dhanbad office, and perhaps a note had been recorded in the concerned file on 17.03.1997, recommending the petitioner’s promotion as Daftari. It further appears that respondent no.5 became aware of the same and promptly submitted a representation setting forth his claim for promotion. On review of the entire matter, respondent no.5 was promoted to the post of Daftari leading to the present O.A at the instance of the writ petitioner and has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the validity of the impugned action on the ground that the petitioner was senior to respondent no.5, having been appointed on 01.9.1982. He should have been preferred to respondent no.5. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 3 6. It appears to us that the petitioner had initially joined on 01.9.1982, whereas respondent no.5 had initially joined on 27.05.1983. However, in view of petitioner’s request transfer, he slipped to the bottom of the seniority list as a result of which, respondent no.5 became senior to him. The net result is that, on the date of promotion, respondent no.5 was senior to the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the promotion of respondent no.5. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal ) Patna High Court, Dated the 2nd day of April, 2010 HR/NAFR