High Court · 2012

The prayer of the petitioner is to grant promotion to the post of Junior Reader with retrospective effect at par with the petitioner involved in the first writ petition, who is the respondent No. 3 in the second writ petition. Further praye r of the petitioner is also to pay the admissible salary for the period in quest ion covering which the supernumerary post has been created by Annexure-J communi cation dated 31.10.2003. While entertaining the first writ petition by order dated 27.5.2004, an interim order was passed staying the operation of the Annexure-J communication dated 31. 10.2003 with the stipulation that the petitioner involved in the first writ peti tion would continue to remain senior to the respondent No. 3 until further order . Pursuant to the said interim order, the Government in the Printing & Stationer y Department issued the communication dated 27.4.2005 to the Director of Printin g & Stationery Department directing him to maintain the inter-se seniority posit ion of the two incumbents as it exists prior to issuance of the said Annexure-J communication dated 31.10.2003. Vide the said communication, the Director, Print ing & Stationery Department issued the order dated 6.5.2005 fixing seniority of the two incumbents i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. As per the said order, the petitioner in the first writ petition is senior to the petitioner in volved in the second writ petition. However, the fact of the matter is that the said two orders have been issued pursuant to the interim order of this Court in the first writ petition. Although the petitioner in the first writ petition has made his claim for senior ity over the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the said two orders dated 27.4.200 5 and 6.5.2005, but the same being on the basis of an interim order of this Cour t in the first writ petition, is of no consequence so far as determination of se niority between the two incumbents is concerned. The said two orders being in vi ew of the interim order passed in the first writ petition, necessarily the final outcome of the writ petition would govern the seniority dispute between the two incumbents. The petitioner, involved in the second writ petition, is going to retire from se rvice on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2012. His on ly grievance is in respect of effective date of promotion. If the Annexure-F ord er dated 22.5.1996 is not interfered with, then the respondent No. 3 involved in the first writ petition, who is the petitioner in the second writ petition woul d rank senior to the petitioner in the first writ petition. Apart from the fact that the said order dated 22.5.1996 was not challenged for long 8 years and thus the matter attained finality, as noted in the said order dated 22.5.1996, the p etitioner was promoted to the post of Copy Holder long after expiry of the selec t list that was published. However, I am not inclined to go into the merit of th e matter as the promotion was effected way back in the year 1995, for which, a p anel was finalized on 22.1.1992. It was in the above circumstances, the Government in the Printing & Stationery D epartment passed the impugned order dated 22.5.1996 providing retrospective prom otion to the petitioner in the second writ petition, whose case was not consider ed, although was senior with the direction to create supernumerary post to cover the period in question. The said orders having attained its finality and the pe titioner in the second writ petition also being promoted to the post of Copy Hol der, I am not inclined to interfere with the same and that too in a belated writ petition filed in 2004. In view of the above, it will have to be held that the petitioner in the second writ petition will rank senior to the respondent No. 3 i.e. the petitioner in th e first writ petition. If that be so, the case of the petitioner involved in the second writ petition will have to be considered at par with the respondent No. 3 for promotion to the post of Junior Reader from the date when he is so promote d on 12.11.2009 applying the test of ’Next Below Rule’. Although the petitioner in the second writ petition has been promoted to the sai d post by order dated 28.6.2010, but to affect the said promotion at par with hi s junior with retrospective effect, some exercise will have to be carried out to wards creation of supernumerary post etc. Since the retirement of the petitioner is first approaching (December, 2012), the official respondents are directed to do the needful in this regard so as to confer retrospective benefit of the prom otion to the petitioner at par with his junior i.e. the petitioner in the first writ petition as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 30.1 0.2012. Irrespective of the aforesaid determination and having regard to the fact that t he petitioner in the first writ petition has already been promoted to the post o f Junior Reader, it is hereby directed that the said promotion shall not be dist urbed and the petitioner involved in the first writ petition shall continue to r emain as Junior Reader from the due date pursuant to the order dated 21.11.2009. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3, who is the petitioner in the second wr it petition will be considered for promotion from the said date at par with his junior i.e. the petitioner in the first writ petition with all consequential ben efits as per the stipulation made above. As regards payment of arrear alary to the petitioner in the second writ petition in respect of the promotion to the post of Copy Holder, for which, Annexure-J c ommunication was issued, the official respondents are directed to implement the Annexure-J communication towards payment of arrear salary to the petitioner with in the aforesaid stipulated period of time. Interim order operating in the first writ petition being WP(C) No. 3610/2004 stands vacated. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disp osed of. There shall be no order as to costs.