KHEM RAJ BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Khem Raj Bhatt
State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. -
(1.) THE petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the respondents/State dated 13th December, 2005 by which the petitioner, in essence, has been down graded while deleting his name from the seniority list of Ministerial employees.
(2.) THE short fact of the case is as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver which is a Class -III post in the pay scale of 950 -1500. Apart from the skill of driving vehicles, he had acquired skill of stenography both in Hindi and in English languages. The petitioner was asked to discharge the duty of Typist in view of shortage of ministerial employee and the petitioner continued to discharge his duty as such. In 1990, he met with an accident and it was difficult for him to drive heavy vehicle. So, the petitioner was utilized by the respondents as Office Assistant and in the process he continued to discharge duties not only that of stenographer, typist but also of clerk for some times. While recognizing his nature of the duty apart from driver, the Director by an order dated 4th August, 2001 fitted the petitioner to the pay scale of 3050 -4590 which was admissible for typist, computer operator etc. In that order, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is discharging the duties of typist because of his incapacity in discharging the duties as a driver. Not only the aforesaid order was passed, this was acted upon on payment of salary in the said pay scale and he was placed in the seniority list of Office Assistant.
(3.) UNFORTUNATELY , in the year 2005, a notice was issued to him asking to show cause why his name should not been deleted from the list of cadre of Office Assistant. The cause was shown by the petitioner mentioning all facts and also the relevant rules. It was claimed that the change of cadre on account of incapacity due to ailment or accident or otherwise and, as such, he has been fitted to the post of Office Assistant. By the impugned order, such assertion of the petitioner has been rejected and it was said that he was originally driver and he should not be fitted and/or appointed to the post of Office Assistant. His name in the cadre, consequently in the seniority list of the Office Assistant is absolutely illegal and this was done by mistake. So, he was reverted to the position of Driver deleting his name from seniority list.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.