GANGADHAR KAR KALI CHARAN DAS Vs. DURGACHARAN PANDA:STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(SC)-1994-1-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on January 04,1994

Gangadhar Kar Kali Charan Das Appellant
VERSUS
Durgacharan Panda:State Of Orissa Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

S.RAMAA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-47] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The short question on which the fate of this appeal hangs is whether the decision to give the first respondent, D. C. Panda promotion to the post of assistant Controller with retrospective effect was correct The High court has approved the promotion. We think that the High court was right in its conclusion.
(2.)The first respondent was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 10/08/1959. and was confirmed in that post on 10/08/1961. In 1965 he opted to join the Agricultural Department as Supervisor, Marketing. However, within a few months thereafter he sought repatriation to his parent department but for one reason or the other that was not permitted till 17/03/1970. On repatriation, he was posted as Laboratory Assistant. He claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Controller from the date his juniors in the cadre of laboratory Assistants were promoted to that post. His representations to the authorities concerned for his promotion as Senior Assistant with effect from 8/01/1968 having not been granted, he filed a Writ Petition No. OSC-2179 of 1975 in the High court of orissa for promotion. The High court directed the authorities concerned to grant him deemed date of promotion with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted. The authorities conceded his claim in that behalf. He had then to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of assistant Controller from the date his immediate junior was so promoted. His representation was rejected. Thereupon he filed another Writ Petition No. OSC- 851 of 1978 claiming seniority from 9/10/1968 over those who had been promoted from that date. The High court took the view that since he was given promotion retrospectively from 8/01/1968 in the cadre of Senior inspectors he was entitled to be placed above his juniors in the cadre of assistant Controllers also. This view of the High Court seems to be unassailable for the reason that once the First respondent was granted pro forma promotion retrospectively his seniority had to be fixed from the date on which he was granted such promotion. It is nobody's case that any condition was imposed in regard to seniority while permitting him to repatriate to the cadre of Laboratory assistant nor is it anybody's case that the decision of the government to grant him promotion retrospectively was qualified by a condition that he will not beentitled to seniority. If he was granted retrospective promotion without any qualification whatsoever the High court is right that his seniority must be a determined on the basis as if he had continued in his parent department retaining his original seniority. We, therefore, do not see any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. I. As. Nos. 1 and 4 do not survive.
(3.)The special leave petition is taken on board and is dismissed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.