SURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari on 3rd January, 1984 on ad hoc basis. On 31st August, 1987, the petitioner was appointed as a regular Patwari. His services was confirmed on 1st July, 1996. According to the petitioner, he was placed at serial No. 94 of the seniority list and that persons junior to the petitioner were given increments and selection grade and promotional pay scale whereas the petitioner was denied these benefits. Accordingly, a representation was made which was rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition, praying not only for the quashing of the order dated 6.6.1991 and 17.3.2004 but also praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the selection grade of pay scale from 1992 as well as promotional scale from 1998.
(2.) As per the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2000, the petitioner is entitled for first increment upon completion of 8 years of service. According to the petitioner, since he was appointed in 1984, he completed 8 years of service and, therefore, was entitled to be given the first increment in the year 1992. The alternate case of the petitioner is, that assuming without admitting that the ad hoc period cannot be taken into consideration, the petitioner was regularly appointed in the year 1987, and upon completion of 8 years of service in 1995, he was required to be paid the first increment, which has also not been paid.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason indicated by the respondents for not giving the first increment is that there was an adverse entry against the petitioner in his service record for the year 1991 and another adverse entry was made in the year 1999. According to the petitioner, both these adverse entries were not communicated and consequently in view of Rule 5 of The U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995, such adverse entry, which has not been communicated, could not be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion. In this regard, the petitioner has made necessary averment in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, which upon perusal, the Court finds that it only relates to the entry made against the entry in his confidential report for the year 1999-2000. The respondents, in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, have not denied this fact that the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner for the year 1999-2000 was ever communicated to the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.