D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis as Baildar. Subsequently his designation was changed and he was asked to perform the job of Helper. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anand Kumar that the petitioner has since been posted as Baildar once again by the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to him, this order is an order of reversion since the post of Helper is a post higher than that of the Baildar. Initially he contended that it is a promotional post when his attention was drawn to paragraph 7 of the writ petition, he admitted that the scale of Baildar and Helper is identical, viz.. Rs. 750-940 but the Helper enjoys certain privileges which are not available to the Baildar. According to him, this additional privilege enjoyed by the Helper makes the post of Helper higher than that of the Baildar and that is why he used the expression promotion. However, according to him the petitioner could not be reversed to the post of Baildar without giving an opportunity. On these grounds, he claims that the order of reversion should be quashed.
(2.) Mr. N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was first engaged as daily wager and not against a post. Therefore, he cannot claim any right to the designation of Helper. He then contends that Helper and the Baildar are both class IV post with same pay scale. Therefore, there is no question of promotion. Grant of few privileges does not make the post Helper higher than that of Baildar. Therefore, the order that has been impugned in this writ petition is not an order of reversion. As such it does not inflict any civil consequence for which the petitioner could claim the opportunity of hearing. He then points out from the statement made in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was sought to be considered for Group 'B' status which is in fact a promotion or posting at a higher post. In order to consider him for being granted Group 'B' status he has been redesignated as Baildar. His case has already been forwarded for being considered for conferring such status and as soon the concurrence is given, the petitioner would be given Group 'B' status. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any cause of action simply because of missing certain privileges, viz., washing allowance and cotton and woollen dress. It is allowed only for the purpose for the particular job done by a particular person. It is not a privilege. These are necessary for the purpose of doing particular Job. While doing the job of Baildar one is not required to use such dress. On these grounds, he prays that this writ petition should be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties.;