Delhi High Court
Harihar Prasad Das vs Chairman, Central Pollution ... on 14 December, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11669/2016
Date of decision: 14th December, 2016
HARIHAR PRASAD DAS ..... Petitioner
In person.
versus
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
C.M. No. 45966/2016
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W. P.(CIVIL) No. 11669/2016
We have heard Harihar Prasad Das, the petitioner, who appears in
person.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Law Officer on 2 nd
December, 1987 and promoted as Law Officer on 20th December, 1995.
3. The petitioner, had retired from service on 30th April, 2013 from the
post of Senior Law Officer, to which post he was promoted on 11 th June,
2012.
W.P. (C) No. 11669/2016 Page 1 of 3
4. The petitioner had filed OA No. 1493/2015 for direction to the
respondents to promote him as Senior Law Officer with effect from 13 th
February, 2008.
5. One Ishwar Singh was promoted and was serving as Senior Law
Officer till he retired from service on 31st October, 2011. The said Ishwar
Singh, who was serving as a Law Officer, was designated and treated as
Additional Director (Law) vide order dated 13th February, 2008.
6. The petitioner's claim for promotion or rather consideration for
promotion to the post of Senior Law Officer with effect from 13th
February, 2008 is predicated on Ishwar Singh's "promotion" and
appointment as Additional Director (Law) after the office order dated 13th
February, 2008.
7. The Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the contention of
the petitioner and has rejected the same observing that under the Water
(Prevention and Control Board) Rules, 1975, the post of Additional
Director (Law) did not exist and was not a post in the hierarchy. The post
of Senior Law Officer was solitary or a single post. The respondents had
upgraded and treated the post of Senior Law Officer, as Additional
Director (Law). In other words, the single post of Senior Law Officer was
treated and upgraded as Additional Director (Law). The Tribunal has
deprecated and made observations on the upgradation or treatment of the post
of Senior Law Officer as Additional Director (Law). In fact, the petitioner,
W.P. (C) No. 11669/2016 Page 2 of 3
who appears in person, states that the aforesaid exercise was wrong and
contrary to the rules. To this extent, the petitioner supports the order of the
Tribunal.
8. We have considered the case of the petitioner from all angles, but do
not find any merit in the contention, for obvious and apparent reasons.
There was only one post of Senior Law Officer, which was occupied by
Ishwar Singh till he retired on 31st October, 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner
was promoted to the said post and had worked till he retired on 30th April,
2013. In case, we hold that the post of Additional Director (Law) was
wrongly "created" and said designation should not have been granted, the
petitioner would not be entitled to promotion as Senior Law Officer till
Ishwar Singh had demitted office on 31st October, 2011. In case, we hold
that the post of Senior Law Officer was re-designated and upgraded as
Additional Director (Law), then again the petitioner would not be entitled
to the benefit, for there was no existing vacant post of Senior Law Officer,
till retirement of Ishwar Singh on 31st October, 2011.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JAYANT NATH, J.
DECEMBER, 14 2016 NA
