Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41739 of 2004 Petitioner :- Phool Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- W.H.Khan,J H Khan Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Saxena,Sabhajeet Yadav Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Heard Sri W.H.Khan, assisted by Sri Parvez Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel who has put in appearance for
respondents No. 2 to 5 and has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on
record.
The petitioner has raised a grievance that initially he was appointed as
Chowkidar in the services of U.P.Jal Nigam. Later on, he was asked to work
as compressor attendant. The attention of the Court was drawn to application
dated 15.7.1987 which was duly recommended by the concerned engineers of
the U.P.Jal Nigam in which it was indicated by the supervisory engineers that
the petitioner has experience of handling of boring compressors. There are
recommendation to the effect that Phool Chand, petitioner has been looking
after operational work of compressor since June, 1986. He is well versed with
the job of compressor attendant.
The petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition which
was disposed of with the observations that the Chief Engineer, U.P.Jal Nigam
will look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
Accordingly the order has been passed on 13.8.2004 impugned in this writ
petition by the Chief Engineer(Mechanical), U.P.Jal Nigam.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the recommendations put forth by
the supervisory Engineer have not been taken into account. The Chief
Engineer infact made a comparative assessment of the candidature of one
Tajumul Hussain and the petitioner. The petitioner’s case could not be
considered independently taking into account his long experience working in
U.P.Jal Nigam since 1980 and has remained associated with the drilling
activities of U.P.Jal Nigam . He was also asked to work as compressor
attendant for a substantially long period. The recommendation of the
concerned supervisory engineer has been ignored by the Chief Engineer while
passing the impugned order.
Sri Saxena has strongly resisted the writ petition. He has drawn attention of
the Court to the various pleas taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Chowkidar and he has remained as Chowkidar and
he has no right to claim promotion on the post of compressor driver or
compressor attendant. Tajumul Hussain was initially appointed on the post of
compressor while the petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar. A Chowkidar
cannot be equated with that of compressor helper.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
dated 13.8.2004. The matter requires reconsideration as the Chief Engineer
has not taken into account the experience of the petitioner and of work in the
compressor operation section. The recommendation submitted by the
Engineers could have been taken into account. It was indicated that the
petitioner was asked to work as compressor attendant and his work has
remained satisfactory.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the observations that the
petitioner may submit a fresh representation giving the above said details in
support of his submission and the the Chief Engineer shall take into account
the working experience of the petitioner in compressor section . He may also
take note of the recommendations or reports submitted by the supervisory
engineers or technicians of the U.P.Jal Nigam. A reasoned and speaking order
shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of presentation
of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.7.2010
VPC