Delhi High Court
Raghuvir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 August, 2011
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 2723/1987
Reserved on: August 9, 2011
Decision on: August 29, 2011
RAGHUVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
JUDGMENT
29.08.2011
1. The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Projects & Equipment
Corporation of India Limited („PECIL‟) in the pay scale of Rs. 310-480 on 25th July
1979. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Executive Assistant
(„EA‟)/Junior Accountant („JA‟) in the pay scale of Rs. 430-950 on temporary basis.
By an office order dated 18th September 1982 he was regularized in the post of EA.
2. For promotion to the next higher post of Office Manager, the incumbent should
have completed seven years as EA/JA /Stenographer. However, where a candidate,
like the Petitioner, belonged to the reserved category, the number of years to be
completed in the feeder cadre was five years. In terms of the applicable promotion
policy at that point in time, the period of ad hoc/officiating service was also to be
counted for the purpose of eligibility for promotion. In the seniority list of
EA/JA/Stenographer announced on 27th June 1986, the Petitioner was placed at
Serial No. 59 although the date of his initial appointment to the post of EA was 16th
February 1981.
3. On 30th June 1987 the Petitioner made a representation stating that the Respondent
had arbitrarily excluded the officiating period of the Petitioner as EA while
considering the Petitioner for promotion as Office Manager.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on 20th January 1988 the stand taken by PECIL is was
that the initial appointment of the Petitioner was temporary and that the officiating
period would not count for the purpose of consideration for promotion.
5. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Rajiv Dewan, learned counsel for the
Petitioner. He placed reliance upon a number of decisions including B.D. Verma v.
Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 433, R.S. Ajara v. State of Gujarat (1997) 3 SCC
641, Dr. (Capt.) Akhuri Ramesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Bihar (1996) 2 SCC 20,
C.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. AIR 1984 SC 1527, and Suraj Bhan v.
Union of India 2006 (82) DRJ 180 (DB) to urge that the ad hoc period as EA should
count for the purpose of determining the eligibility for promotion as Office Manager.
Relying upon the decision in P.N. Premchandra v. State of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC
245 it is submitted that the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of
administrative lapse of the Respondent in not considering the case of the Petitioner
for promotion as and when it fell due. Mr. Dewan pointed out that Mr. A.K.
Gandotra, Mr. H.C. Kapoor and Mr. V.K. Chaudhary were promoted by giving them
the benefit of the officiating/ad hoc service. Since none has appeared for the
Respondents, this Court has taken note of their stand in the counter affidavit.
6. It is admitted by Respondent No. 2 in the counter affidavit that if the ad
hoc/officiating period served by the Petitioner in the post of EA was counted, then
the Petitioner would satisfy the requirement of the qualifying period for promotion to
the post of Office Manager. It is pointed out that there was a settlement arrived at
with the employees and Clause 4.7.2 thereof required the SC/ST roster to be
continued to be maintained. Although it is not denied that the officiating service had
to be considered, it is stated that since it might result in suppression of a number of
seniors, "promotion of seniors was effected upon their completing the qualifying
period." It is submitted that the basic seniority list had not been disturbed. It is stated
that Mr. Om Pal Singh, whose promotion to the post of Office Manager was earlier
to the Petitioner, was in fact senior to the Petitioner. As regards Mr. Ramesh Kumar,
he had been promoted to the post on 1st July 1987 but the monetary benefits had been
granted to him with effect from 11th January 1987. The Petitioner had been shown
senior to Mr. Ramesh Kumar.
7. The explanation given by the Respondent for not counting the ad hoc period is not
very convincing. In terms of the policy that was applicable at the time the Petitioner
had to be considered for promotion, the period during which he was an ad hoc EA
had to be counted. The policy whereby the ad hoc period was to be excluded was
subsequently made and would not apply retrospectively to deny the Petitioner his
right to have the ad hoc period counted for the purposes of seniority. The explanation
that this might affect his seniors overlooks the fact that for the Petitioner who was in
the reserved category the period of qualifying service for promotion was five years
whereas for those who were in the unreserved category it was seven years. Therefore
even otherwise the Petitioner would have been promoted as Office Manager earlier
than those belonging to the unreserved category who might have been senior to him
in the feeder cadres. The Petitioner is justified in contending that the period of
officiating/ad hoc service in the post of EA should be counted for his eligibility for
promotion to the post of Office Manager. There appears to be no valid reason for
denying the Petitioner promotion as Office Manager with effect from 1st July 1987 as
prayed for.
8. Accordingly, a mandamus is issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider the case of
the Petitioner for promotion as Office Manager from 1st July 1987 and also fix his
seniority accordingly with all consequential benefits. Necessary orders be issued and
payment of arrears be made by Respondent No. 2 within a period of eight weeks
from today.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
AUGUST 29, 2011
rk
