1
Writ Petition No. 1607 / 2003
08/07/2010:
Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Challenging the gradation list dated 07/06/2002,
showing respondent Nos.5 & 6, senior to the petitioner in
the cadre of Peons and further challenging the order dated
06/01/2003, granting promotion to respondent Nos.5 & 6
on the post of Asst. Grade-III, ignoring the claim of
petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner and
respondent Nos.5 & 6 were recruited in the office of
respondent No.4 together on 01/07/1986, in the order
annexure P-1 dated 01/07/1986 name of petitioner
appears at Sr. No.15, that of respondent No.5 at Sr. No.13
and respondent No.6 at Sr. No.22. It is stated that even
though all of them were appointed together, but vide
order dated 04/07/1988, respondent No.3 regularized
respondent Nos.5 & 6 on the post of Peon in the regular
pay-scale Rs.725-900/- vide annexure P-2 dated
04/07/1988, whereas the petitioner was regularized only
2
vide order dated 10/08/1992 on the basis of
recommendation of the Screening Committee in the said
pay-scale vide annexure P-3. It is stated that while in
service petitioner has passed the High School
Examination and when the gradation list dated 07/06/02
was published vide annexure P-5, petitioner’s name did
not find place. Subsequently, he represented when he was
appointed as a regular peon, but respondent Nos.5 & 6
have been granted further promotion on the post of Asst.
Grade-III vide order annexure P-12 dated 06/01/03.
Contending that petitioner is senior to respondent Nos.5
& 6 on the basis of seniority, as per the initial date of
appointment, and ignoring his claim respondents have
been shown senior and granted further promotion,
petitioner seeks interference into the matter.
3. Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the
petitioner emphasized that when petitioner and the other
respondents were appointed on the same date, then
petitioner cannot be discriminated and treated differently
in the matter of grant of seniority and promotion,
accordingly, seeking correction of the gradation list and
consideration of his case for promotion petitioner has
filed this writ petition.
3
4. Respondents have objected to the claim of
petitioner and it is pointed out by them that in the
seniority list of daily wages employee, as on 31/12/87,
name of respondent Nos.5 & 6 appeared at Sr. No.50 &
84 respectively, and that of petitioner at Sr. No.101. Each
and every daily wages employee was regularized as per
his entitlement on the basis of seniority after screening by
a committee and as respondent Nos.5 & 6 were
regularized in the year 1988 and petitioner was only
regularized when his turn came in the year 2002, as per
his seniority it is stated that petitioner cannot claim any
benefit, accordingly, respondents resists the claim of
petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on consideration of the facts that has come on record it is
clear that even though petitioner and respondents were
appointed together on 01/07/86 vide annexure P-1, but on
04/07/88 vide annexure P-2, respondent Nos.5 & 6 were
regularized in the regular service in the pay scale
Rs725-900/- according to the respondents this
regularization was done according to the seniority of
employees and as petitioner was at Sr. No.101 of
seniority list and respondents were at Sr. No.50 & 84
respectively, they were regularized on an earlier date.
4
After respondent Nos.5 & 6 were regularized on
04/07/88, petitioner was brought in the work-charge
establishment vide annexure P-3 on 10/08/92. When the
respondents were regularized in the year 1988 and when
petitioner was only brought in the work-charge
establishment on 10/08/92 petitioner did not object, he
was extended the said benefit and it was only in the year
2002 that petitioner was brought in the regular
establishment in the pay-scale vide annexure P-7 on
28/10/02, it is, therefore, clear that respondent Nos. 5&6
were regularized in the regular establishment on
04/07/88, whereas petitioner was not regularized, on
10/08/92 that he was only brought in the work-charge and
contingency paid establishment and subsequently
regularized in the regular service and pay-scale vide
annexure P-7 on 28/10/02, when respondents were
regularized in the year 1988 and when petitioner was not
granted these benefits, petitioner did not object to the
same and once petitioner has regularized in the work-
charge establishment in the year 1992 vide annexure P-3
and in the regular establishment on 28/10/02 after due
screening, petitioner cannot claim himself to be senior to
respondent Nos.5&6 by virtue of their earlier engagement
as a daily wages employee on 04/07/88 vide annexure
5
P-2. Petitioner cannot rank senior when he was
regularized only in the work-charge establishment in the
year 1992 and cannot claim seniority over these persons,
who were appointed on regular establishment before him.
Petitioner having not challenged the regularization of
respondents when ordered on 04/07/88 within time,
cannot now have any grievance when seniority is fixed in
accordance to dates of regularization.
6. Accordingly, finding the respondents to be senior to
petitioner and promoted earlier on the basis of seniority
in the regular cadre and finding the claim made by the
petitioner to be devoid of merit for the reasons indicated
hereinabove, this petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon)
Judge
ss*