Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/356/2021 on 21 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                                    COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.          or directions and
             Registrar's order
             with Signatures


                                 WPSB No. 356 of 2021
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.

2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for respondent nos. 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 45.

4. Petitioners have challenged the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 23/NB/DB/2018. By the impugned judgment, Claim Petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were promoted to Group-II post of Assistant Development Officer before 30.06.2010, while the private respondents were appointed by direct recruitment during the Recruitment Year 2013-14. He submits that the date of substantive appointment of private respondents on the aforesaid post is 06.12.2013. Thus, he submits that private respondents cannot be placed above the petitioners in the seniority list, as they were appointed several years after promotion of the petitioners to Group-II post of Assistant Development Officer.

6. Learned counsel for private respondents, however, submits that petitioners were given accelerated promotion, as they belong to Scheduled Caste category, and there were many persons belonging to General Category, senior to them in the feeder post, who were promoted later to Group-II post of Assistant Development Officer. He thus submits that such General category persons, who were promoted later to Group-II post of Assistant Development Officer, were promoted up to the month of October, 2014. Thus, he submits that such senior General Category persons, who were promoted at a later date compared to the writ petitioners, regained their seniority on the promoted post by application of catch-up rule. He, thus, submits that since such senior persons were promoted to Group- II post of Assistant Development Officer up to Recruitment Year 2014-15 and became senior to petitioners, while the private respondents were appointed by direct recruitment to the said post during earlier Recruitment Year i.e. 2012-13, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Claim Petition, filed by the petitioners.

7. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks two weeks time to file supplementary affidavit.

8. In the supplementary affidavit to be filed, petitioners shall disclose the date of promotion of all persons senior to them in the feeder post, who were promoted to Group-II post of Assistant Development Officer at a later date. The petitioners shall also indicate the date of appointment of private respondents on Group-II post of Assistant Development Officer.

9. List this case on 18.06.2025.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.05.2025 Shiksha