KUNDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
HONBLE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. -
(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner initially contending that he should be given promotion by the respondents to the
post of Lower Division Clerk/Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of
4500 -125 -7000 and give all consequential benefits of Lower Division Clerk/Data Entry Operator w.e.f. the date of his joining in the State of
(2.) IT appears that there has been an amendment during the pendency of the writ petition. By an amendment respondent Nos. 4 to 9
were impleaded as parties. It appears in the amended writ petition that
the aforesaid respondents had been given appointment to illegally fill up
the post claimed by the petitioner.
(3.) THE short fact of the writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was appointed on 24.01.1991 as Peon. He was posted
in the Vidhan Parishad Secretariat Uttar Pradesh on 01.09.1994. On
bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh and creation of the State of
Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), he came over to the State of Uttarakhand,
as he exercised option to switchover to this State. It is said that one
of the conditions was that the incumbent, who would be going to
Uttarakhand would get one higher pay scale post. Finally he was relieved
of 30.12.2000 to enable him to join his services in this State. It is
stated that on 18.01.2001, six posts of Lower Division Clerk/Data Entry
Operator were created and he was under impression that he would be
promoted to one of such post as he is qualified and deserving candidate.
Unfortunately, he was not promoted, despite creation of the said posts.
However he has admitted that he was promoted to the post of Typist on
18.08.2004. He made several representations to the respondents for granting promotion from the year 2001 on such created posts. His
contention is that he ought to have been promoted automatically, as 15
per cent quota of the aforesaid total vacancies should have been filled
up by promotion. In sum and substance he ought to have been promoted in
the year 2001 when new six posts were created. Thereafter he filed this
writ petition in the year 2006. During the pendency of the writ petition
for six years, he was given another promotion. This fact is not in the
writ petition and it has been brought in the amended writ petition.
In the counter affidavit it is stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are not similarly placed with that of the writ petitioner. They were
direct recruitee and the posts held by them are different what has been
claimed by the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit of
the respondents concerned that the petitioner accepted the promotion in
the year 2004 without any protest. The petitioner however has said in the
rejoinder affidavit that promotion in the year 2004 was accepted with
protest. These are the factual aspect of the matter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.