IQBAL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Two petitioners, by this writ petition have challenged two orders dated 7th August, 2007 and 25th August, 2007 respectively issued by the respondents authorities. By the first mentioned order respondent authority had taken decision that the post of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk is different cadre from the post of Junior Assistant and thereby they should be treated separately. The second one is the order of rejection basing on the first order. The short fact, narrated in the writ petition to challenge the aforesaid two orders, is as follows:-
The petitioners were appointed by the then Government of Uttar Pradesh Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerks. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 1st March, 1995 while the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 5th March, 1995.
(2.) They claim, at the time of appointment, under the Rules they were treated to be at par with the cadre of Junior Clerk in other Government Departments or Offices. Their assertion is supported by the relevant Rule 5(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urdu Translator cum Junior Clerk, 1995 (for short "the Rules") which has been stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. According to them their status and position were same as that of the Junior Clerks, rather they were serving in better way than the Junior Clerk does under the Cadre Curricular Scheme. Both these cadres were enjoying the same pay scale.
(3.) It is further stated that under Rule 21 of the U.P. Govt. Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 (in short "Rules 1991") the seniority of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk has been determined in accordance with the Rules, 1991. According to them, combined seniority list of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk and Ordinary Junior Clerk should have been prepared under aforesaid Rule 1991, but it was not done so, even after bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 9 November, 2000.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.