- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The appellant was a Lekhpal in the Revenue Department and he filed a writ petition claiming second promotional pay scale that had been denied to him by the order of the District Magistrate dated 14.06.2010 relying on a report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 24.05.2010. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was sufficient for the District Magistrate to have arrived at the conclusion in the impugned order which did not call for any interference as neither there was any factual error nor any legal error so as to exercise a writ of certiorari.
(3.) Aggrieved the appellant is before us in this Special Appeal and learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the District Magistrate does not disclose any independent reasons that ought to have been recorded as to why the explanation of the appellant as against the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not sustainable. He further submits that the appellant was not given any opportunity by the District Magistrate prior to the passing of the impugned order and, therefore the same is also in violation of principles of natural justice which aspect has been over-looked by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. It is, therefore, submitted that not only there is a procedural violation but there is a substantive error inasmuch as the learned Single Judge also did not enquire into the status of the entries which had lost their efficacy even if they were adverse to the appellant. The appellant had completed twenty four years of continuous satisfactory services and therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of the second promotional pay scale as per the Government Order dated 10.04.2006. Learned counsel submits that the Government Order dated 30.06.1993 explains the word "satisfactory services" and prescribes guidelines to be followed by the Authorities which does not appear to have been adhered to either by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order. The contention, therefore, is that all these aspects having gone unnoticed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge can not be sustained and the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned order in the writ petition also deserves to be quashed with a direction to extend the benefit of second promotional pay scale to the appellant as prayed for.;