SBCWP No.1872/97- Mohd. Umar v. State & ors
Date of Order: 16.02.2009
1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
J O D H P U R
:::
O R D E R
:::
Mohd. Umar v. State of Rajasthan &
others
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1872 OF 1997
:::
Date of Order: 16th February, 2009
:::
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr Nitin Trivedi, for the petitioner
Mr K.R. Charan, for the respondents
By this petition for writ, a direction is sought
by the petitioner for his promotion to the post of
Mistry Grade-I from the date person junior to him
stood promoted as such.
In brief, the facts of the case are that the
petitioner was employed with Indira Gandhi Canal
Project (hereinafter referred to as I.G.N.P.) as mason
on work-charge basis with effect from 13th July, 1975.
One Shri Ishwar Lal was also employed as mason in
SBCWP No.1872/97- Mohd. Umar v. State & ors
Date of Order: 16.02.2009
2 of 5
work-charge cadre with I.G.N.P. On 22nd April, 1980.
The petitioner as well as Shri Ishwar Lal both were
employed in 16th Division of I.G.N.P., Bikaner.
Respondents under an order dated 01st October, 1983
allowed promotion to Ishwar Lal to the post of Mistry
Grade-I as per provisions of the Standing Order for
workmen engaged on work-charge establishment in
Rajasthan Canal Project. Being aggrieved by the same,
petitioner submitted a complaint to the competent
authority of the department and by acting upon the
same, by order dated 10th August, 1992, promotion given
to Shri Ishwar Lal vide order dated 01st October, 1983
was withdrawn.
Shri Ishwar Lal assailed validity of the order
dated 10th August, 1992 by preferring a petition for
writ before this Court and that came to be accepted on
the count that the order impugned was passed in
violation of principles of natural justice,
accordingly, an order dated 07th August, 1996 was
passed by the Executive Engineer, 16th Division,
I.G.N.P., Bikaner, withdrawing the order dated 10th
August, 1992. Accordingly, position of Ishwar Lal as
Mistry Grade-I as that was prior to 10th August, 1992
stood restored.
The petitioner again approached to respondents by
way of submitting representation, with a claim for
promotion as Mistry Grade-I being senior to Ishwar
SBCWP No.1872/97- Mohd. Umar v. State & ors
Date of Order: 16.02.2009
3 of 5
Lal. On being failed to get any favourable decision
from the respondents, he approached this Court by way
of filing this petition for writ.
It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner
that the petitioner as well as Ishwar Lal both were
working in 16th Division, I.G.N.P., Bikaner and in the
aforesaid Division, petitioner being senior to Ishwar
Lal should have been promoted first as Mistry Grade-I.
Per contra, it is stated by the respondents that
seniority in I.G.N.P. is require to be maintained
unit-wise in accordance with applicable Standing
Orders and the petitioner was working in a unit
different to unit in which Ishwar Lal was working,
therefore, seniority of both persons can not be
equated. It is asserted that promotion was given to
Ishwar Lal in the unit in which he was working.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Under the Standing Order for workmen engaged on
work-charge cadre in Rajasthan Canal Project, the term
‘unit’ means – “territorial jurisdiction of authority
competent to make appointment on work-charge
establishment”. In the same Standing Order, Chief
Engineer, I.G.N.P. under an office order dated 25th
June, 1981 framed “The Rajasthan Canal Project Work-
charge Employees Promotion Rules, 1981”. As per those
SBCWP No.1872/97- Mohd. Umar v. State & ors
Date of Order: 16.02.2009
4 of 5
Rules, Appointing Authority to work-charge cadre are
Chief Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer,
Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers.
Assistant Engineer, under the Rules of 1981, is having
no authority to make appointment and as such, the
units as defined under the Standing Order could be at
the minimum level of Executive Engineer.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well
as Shri Ishwar Lal both were working in 16th Division
of I.G.N.P., Bikaner and that Division is within
territorial jurisdiction and control of the Executive
Engineer. The unit of the petitioner as well as of
Shri Ishwar Lal, therefore, is 16th Division, I.G.N.P.,
Bikaner and no other sub-division. Petitioner,
therefore, rightly claimed seniority vis-a-vis Shri
Ishwar Lal.
From perusal of document Annx.1, that is,
seniority list relating to work-charge Masons working
in I.G.N.P., name of petitioner is shown at serial
No.2 whereas name of Ishwar Lal is at serial No.5.
This fact also establishes that the petitioner and
Shri Ishwar Lal were working in the same unit and
petitioner is senior to Shri Ishwar Lal. Respondents
have already given promotion to Shri Ishwar Lal,
ignoring claim of the petitioner, who is senior to
him. There is no just reason for not considering
SBCWP No.1872/97- Mohd. Umar v. State & ors
Date of Order: 16.02.2009
5 of 5
candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Mistry
Grade-I from the date the same is accorded to Shri
Ishwar Lal.
Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves
acceptance and the same is allowed. Respondents are
directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for
the purpose of promotion to the post of Mistry Grade-I
from the date same was accorded to Shri Ishwar Lal. If
the petitioner is otherwise found suitable, promotion
as aforesaid be given to him.
No order as to costs.
[GOVIND MATHUR],J.
mma