M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.2001 passed in CWJC Mo. 228/99R whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim of the appellant -writ petitioner for promotion to the higher post with retrospective effect was not justified. For better appreciation the impugned order/judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Das, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. This case relates to petitioner's promotion to the post of Superintendent. Although the petitioner was given promotion to the higher post but he was not satisfied and in the aforesaid background; the petitioner preferred representation for his promotion from retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 18th October, 1996 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 30th December, 1998, which is under challenge. Respondents, in their counter affidavit have taken plea that Shri K.N. Mishra, respondent No. 4, who was appointed as lower division clerk/typist, was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk earlier, having been made regular w.e.f. 25th October, 1976. The petitioner, who was also promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 25th October. 1976, was subsequently reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 10th Nov. 1978. Later the petitioner was promoted to the higher post. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post from retrospective date has been rejected. No specific case having been made out, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30' December, 1998. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the appellant along with other employees including respondent 4 and 5 (respondent 4 since deleted from the cause title of the appeal who was R -4 in the writ petition) were promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. However, by office order dated 11.10.1978 the promotion given to the appellant and some other employees, was rescinded with immediate effect. Consequently the appellant and other staffs, mentioned in the office order No. 972 of 1978, were reverted to their respective substantive posts. After about three years i.e. in 1981, in pursuance of some settlement arrived at between the Management and the representatives of the Employees' Association, those reverted employees including the appellant, were promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 24th October, 1976 vide office order No. 922 of 1981 dated 16.11.1981. Respondents 4 and 5 in the meantime, were given promotion to the higher post and they were shown senior to the appellant. It appears from the record that in the year, 982, vide office order No. 842 of 1982 so many employees were allowed increments in their respective time scale of pay and in the said office order the appellant was shown junior to respondent nos. 4 and 5. The said office order dated 12.10.82 was never questioned by the appellant. Not only that, again in 1985, vide office order No. 197 of 1985, the appellant was given personal promotion to the supernumary post of office superintendent with effect from 1.11.84. A copy of the said office order has been annexed as annexure - J to the counter affidavit which was filed in the writ petition. Curiously enough this order was also not challenged by the appellant at any point of time, rather, he accepted the aforesaid promotion without raising any objection with regard to permanent promotion given to respondent nos. 4 and 5. It was only after so many years the appellant claimed promotion on the post of Superintendent with effect from 18th October, 1996.
(3.) IN the background of all these admitted facts we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the relief sought for by the appellant -writ petitioner cannot be granted.;