LODHA, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents for restoration of his seniority in the cadre of godown keeper as determined and shown in the final seniority list/gradation list dated 12. 5. 89 with consequential benefits viz. promotion, increments, fixation of pay and arrear of salary etc. which have been granted to his immediate juniors Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Brij Mohan Saini, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. The petitioner has also claimed seniority over respondent Nos. 7 to 12 in the final seniority list of Godown Keeper as on 1. 4. 94, published on 25. 7. 94.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner entered the services of Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation') on being appointed as Godown Keeper vide order dated 5. 7. 71 issued by the respondent No. 1. However, due to reduction of the cadre strength of Godown Keepers, vide order dated 22. 12. 72, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class IV but the persons junior to the petitioner viz. Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Brij Mohan Saini were continued as Godown Keeper. The petitioner was made to discharge duties of Class IV during the period, from January 1, 1973 to April 24, 1973, thereafter he was again posted as Godown Keeper A tentative seniority list of the Godown Keeper was issued by the respondents on 26. 5. 88 wherein the petitioner was shown to be a promotee Godown Keeper w. e. f. 25. 4. 73. It is stated that one Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh respondent No. 8 herein, who was initially appointed as Class IV in the Corporation w. e. f. 3. 3. 72 and continued to work on the said post upto 16. 10. 87 was promoted on the post of Godown Keeper I w. e. f. 13. 12. 79 retrospectively and he was also assigned seniority above the petitioner. The petitioner made the representation and contended that he was appointed as Godown Keeper by way of direct recruitment w. e. f. 12. 6. 71 as Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Brij Mohan Saini were appointed, therefore, after necessary correction, he may be assigned proper place in the seniority list. After due consideration of the representations made by the various incumbents including the petitioner holding the post of Godown Keeper Grade I, the final seniority list was issued by the respondent No. 1 vide circular dated 12. 5. 89 wherein the petitioners name was shown at Serial No. 23 as direct recruit and the date of his appointment was mentioned as 12. 6. 71. The names of Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Brij Mohan Saini appointed as Godown Keeper on 23. 6. 71 and 22. 2. 72 were shown at Serial Nos. 24 and 25 respectively. Shri Ravindra Singh and others respondents No. 8 to 13 were place in the seniority list at Serial Nos. 26 to 33 respectively. Thus, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No. 5 to 12 herein. It is relevant to mention here names of respondent No. 10 and 11 stands deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 13. 4. 2000 passed by this Court. It is further submitted that the candidature of Shri Rajendra Singh, respondent No. 6, was considered for promotion to the post of junior assistant by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 26. 11. 86 but since his service record was not found satisfactory, therefore, he was not accorded promotion on the said post. But Shri Brij Mohan Saini, respondent No. 5, whose candidature was considered in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 29. 6. 86 was accorded promotion on the post of junior assistant vide order dated 3. 8. 87. In this view of the matter, the petitioner made a representation dated 16. 6. 89 and requested for holding the review DPC and to accord him promotion on the post of junior assistant w. e. f. 26. 11. 86. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to make representations but the same were not responded by the respondents. However, in the meantime the petitioner so also Shri Rajendra Singh were promoted on the post of junior assistant vide order dated 23. 6. 90. A tentative seniority list of Godown Keeper as on 1. 4. 94 was issued by respondent No. 1 vide circular dated 18. 5. 94 wherein the petitioner's name was shown at Serial No. 23, however, the names of Serva Shri Rajendra Singh, Ravindra Kumar Singh, Nathuram Jat, Saudanram Saini, Moturam Saini and Babulal Sharma were shown at Serial No. 15 to 22 just above the petitioner, who were shown junior to petitioner in the seniority list dated 12. 5. 89. In the aforesaid tentative seniority list dated 18. 5. 94, the petitioner was shown to be promoted on the post of Godown Keeper w. e. f. 23. 8. 79, whereas in the final seniority list of the Godown Keeper dated 12. 5. 89, the petitioner was shown to be a direct recruit w. e. f. 12. 6. 71. The petitioner submitted his objections to the aforesaid tentative seniority list dated 18. 5. 94 vide representation dated 31. 5. 94. However, without considering the objections made by the petitioner, the final seniority list dated 25. 7. 94 was issued wherein the petitioner's name was not even shown in the list persons who had filed their objections against the aforesaid tentative seniority list and he was placed at Serial No. 23 below Shri Rajendra Singh and others whose names were shown at Serial No. 15 to 22. A tentative seniority list of the post of junior assistant was also issued by the respondent No. 1 vide circular No. 7836 dated 16. 5. 94 wherein also the petitioner was shown to be junior to Shri Rajendra Singh and others. It is stated that the petitioner made representation against the said seniority list of the junior assistant as well. But without considering his representation in the final seniority list of the junior assistant published vide notification dated 20. 7. 94 also the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 87 below the person junior to him. The persons junior to the petitioner Shri Rajendra Singh and others were placed above the petitioner at Serial Nos. 79 to 86.
(3.) AT this stage, a representation dated 22. 2. 94 made by the petitioner regarding the higher salary being drawn by Shri Rajendra Singh, who was admittedly junior to the petitioner was responded by the respondents vide communication dated 17. 8. 94 and the petitioner was informed that since in the final seniority list dated 20. 7. 94, he has been shown below Shri Rajendra Singh, therefore, there is no anomaly existing in the pay of the petitioner vis-a-vis Shri Rajendra Singh. The petitioner served the respondents with a notice for demand of justice claiming the relief that in the final seniority list of junior assistant, he is entitled to be placed at Serial No. 79 above Shri Rajendra Singh and other officials. He also claimed promotion to the post of junior assistant with effect from the date the person junior to him was promoted to the post of junior assistant, with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents have not extended the relief prayed for. Hence, this petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, wherein it is stated that on account of reduction of business of the Corporation the cadre strength of the Godown Keeper was reduced and, therefore, on option being exercised by the petitioner, he was accorded appointment of the post of Class IV vide order dated 22. 12. 72 and in pursuance thereof he joined his duties on 1. 1. 73 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Godown Keeper, therefore, his seniority has rightly been fixed below the respondent No. 5 to 12. It is stated that on account of fresh appointment being accorded to the petitioner on the post of Class IV there was break in service as Godown Keeper and on his subsequent promotion to the post of Godown Keeper, he has rightly been shown junior to Shri Rajendra Singh and others. The application submitted by the petitioner giving option for appointment as Class IV employee has been placed on record as Annexure-R1 and order appointing the petitioner in the Class IV has been placed on record as Annexure- R2. That apart, though not referred in the pleadings along with Annexure-R/2, incidentally, the respondents have placed on record an order dated 25. 11. 72 (at page No. 145) wherein it is mentioned that services of the employees named therein are no longer required and shall terminated w. e. f. 31. 12. 72. It is relevant to mention here that the name of petitioner finds mentioned in the said order but the names of respondent No. 5 & 6 do not find mentioned therein. ;