- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondents dated 5.08.2011 which is annexed at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition, whereby the petitioner's promotion on the post of Foreman has been kept under suspension till the seniority between the petitioner and one Shri Ram Ayodhya Singh is decided by the Departmental Promotion Committee. This order has been passed in the month of August, 2011 and till today, no decision has been taken by the respondents' committee and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. Moreover, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Electrician to the post of Foreman on 6th February, 2009 vide an order at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition with effect from 21st November, 2008. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the promotion which was given in February, 2009 has been kept under suspension in the month of August, 2011 and no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that merely because one Shri Ram Ayodhya Singh has filed a complaint for getting promotion, that does not mean that petitioner's promotion should be kept under suspension. The seniority-list cold have been verified by the high ranking officials of the respondents even without suspending the promotion of the petitioner and, therefore, it is prayed that let the Committee and its working be kept leisurely at their own and let the petitioner be continued on the post of Foreman till any final decision is taken by the said Committee and let a suitable direction be given to the said Committee to give adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before taking final hearing if the same is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that the petitioner was promoted in the month of February, 2009. but there was a complaint received from Shri Ram Ayodhya Singh who is claiming seniority over the present petitioner and, therefore, the case of both these persons will be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee looking to the seniority on the post of Electrician and the Committee has already been constituted and, therefore, some time will be consumed by the said Committee and, therefore, the order at Annexure-3 has been passed.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (a) The petitioner was promoted from the post of Electrician to the post of Foreman vide order dated 6th February, 2009 at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition with effect from 21st November, 2008 and the petitioner has been working on the post of Foreman since then. (b) It further appears that only on showing dissatisfaction by one Shri Ram Ayodhya Singh who has preferred a complaint claiming seniority over the present petitioner and because of this complaint, the promotion which was given to the petitioner in the month of February, 2009 has been put under suspension vide order dated 5th August, 2011 which Is annexed at annexure-3 to the memo of petition. It appears that no decision has been taken till today by the said Committee constituted by the respondents. Seniority between the petitioner and the said Ram Ayodhya Singh could have been verified within a couple of days. For no justifiable reason, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. No reason has been stated in the counter affidavit as to why the said committee is not deciding the issue. No opportunity of even being heard has been given to the petitioner to represent his case before the said Committee before the impugned order dated 5th August. 2011 was passed. Thus, the promotion which was given in the month of February, 2009 has made non-effecti from August, 2011. (c) Respondent No. 1 should have appointed a fresh committee so that such a small issue could have been decided at the earliest and till today, no reason has been given by the respondents.
(3.) I, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 5th August, 2011 at annexure-3 to the memo of petition, to the extent to which it strikes the promotion which was given to the petitioner from the post of Electrician to the post of Foreman. Thus, the petitioner is allowed to continue on the post of Foreman and he shall be allowed to work actually on the post of Foreman till the decision is taken by the said Committee constituted by the respondents. The Committee should not have sat tight over the matter for such a longer period on such a small issue involved. For the aforesaid reasons and facts, this petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and partly the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Foreman till the Committee referred to in the counter affidavit, takes a decision in the matter or till any decision is taken by the Committee adversely against the petitioner. If the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the salary on the post of Foreman will be continued to be paid to the petitioner and during the pendency of the Issue with the Departmental Promotion Committee, also the petitioner will be entitled for all the salary and perks on the post of Foreman and the accumulated amount shall be paid to the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ of.;