RAMLAL GARG Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was initially filed as original application in the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2002, which after closure of the Tribunal came on transfer to this Court and is registered as writ petition. During the pendency of the petition the original petitioner has died and is substituted by his legal representatives.

(2.) THE grievance of the original petitioner was that he was initially appointed as Agriculture Assistant Higher Grade on 01.09.1962 in the Agriculture Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh under the control of Director of Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Subsequently, the original petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer and has attained the age of superannuation and retired from the very same post. A gradation seniority list was circulated on 01.04.1978 showing the position of Agriculture Assistant Higher Grade in which the name of the original petitioner was mentioned at S.No.1400. The name of respondent No.5 I.D. Sharma was mentioned at S.No.1402. The respondent No.5 was, thus, junior to the original petitioner from the initial date of appointment. Another gradation seniority list was issued in the year 1992 showing the position as on 01.04.1992 and subsequently in the year 1994 showing the position as on 01.04.1994 but the name of the petitioner was omitted from the said seniority list without there being any justified reason. The original petitioner, therefore, made a representation on 19.12.1994, which was considered and allowed and the name of the petitioner was directed to be mentioned in the seniority list in appropriate place. By this order dated 23.09.1996 it was directed that the name of the original petitioner be mentioned above the name of respondent No.5. However, despite passing of this order it appears that virtually the same was not implemented in real sense and when the seniority list was issued showing the position as on 01.04.1999, again the name of original petitioner was omitted from the said list. This fact though was represented but was not taken note of and a D.P.C. meeting was convened considering the cases of the Agriculture Assistant Higher Grade for promotion. The petitioner was not granted such promotion whereas juniors to him were considered. Since this was done in improper manner, the original petitioner filed an Original Application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur, for inclusion of his name in the gradation list but said Original Application was disposed of with liberty to the original petitioner to make a representation before the authorities, which was made on 07.02.2000. Since the original petitioner was denied the promotion timely because of the error committed on the part of the respondents, he was required to file the Original Application again before the Tribunal, which now has come before this Court.

(3.) THE order -sheet indicates that the Original Application was entertained on 27.09.2002 and notices were issued to the respondents. After closure of the Tribunal when the matter came before this Court and registered as Writ Petition, the same was listed on 17.09.2003 on which date the respondents -State again prayed for sometime to file the return. Even after granting sufficient time, it appears that no return whatsoever was filed by the respondents. From the documents placed on record it is not clear as to on what date the respondent No.5 was promoted superseding the claim of the original petitioner. However, the fact remains that earlier the name of the original petitioner was not mentioned in the gradation list and that being so, the order was passed by the respondent No.3 on 23.09.1996 directing that the name of original petitioner be placed below the name of one Shri O.P. Ratele, who was the immediate senior to the petitioner. As to why this order was not complied with and why the name of the original petitioner was not mentioned in the seniority list of the year 1999 is not clear. However, the fact remains that the allegations are made by the original petitioner that the respondent No.5 was promoted because of the seniority list so circulated whereas the claim of the original petitioner was not considered at all. This being so, it is necessary for the respondents to examine whether omission of the name of the original petitioner from the gradation list has resulted in his supersession in the matter of promotion or not. The normal age of superannuation was 60 years for the employees of the status of original petitioner and he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation sometime in the month of October, 2000 as his date of birth mentioned in the seniority list, in which his name was mentioned, was 25.10.1940. That being so, there was no question of even allocation of the original petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh on account of reorganization of the State.