SYED HUSSAIN SHAH Vs. J&K TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved and has called in question the order of respondent No.1 bearing No. JKTDC/GMA/955-61 dtd. 23/2/2012 ["the impugned order"] whereby the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary w.e.f 28/3/1995 to 8/3/2000 has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petitioner, are that the petitioner, having been denied the promotion to the next higher post of Sr. Receptionist, filed SWP No. 1370/2007 in this Court with the grievance that some of the clerks/Receptionists, junior to him, had been promoted as Sr. Receptionists ignoring his superior claim. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 18/4/2011 directing the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sr. Receptionist. The matter was placed before the Anomaly Committee for examination and on the basis of recommendations made by the Anomaly Committee and with the approval of the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sr. Receptionist w.e.f 28/3/1995. As a consequence of promotion of the petitioner as Sr. Receptionist w.e.f 28/3/1995, his seniority in the cadre of Sr. Receptionists was re-fixed and he was placed at S.No.1. This was done by the respondent-Corporation vide order No. 309-ADL/JKTDC of 2000 dtd. 8/3/2000.

(3.) As is apparent from order dtd. 8/3/2000 (supra), though, the petitioner was given promotion as Sr. Receptionist retrospectively w.e.f. 28/3/1995 and was placed at S.No.01 of the seniority list of Sr. Receptionists, yet, the arrears of salary, to which the petitioner would have been normally entitled to, were not paid. It appears that the claim of the petitioner to such arrears was voluntarily abandoned/relinquished by the petitioner and in token thereof, he also submitted an undertaking duly registered before the competent Court of law to the respondent-Corporation. The order dtd. 8/3/2000 was accepted by the petitioner with his eyes wide open and without registering any protest. There was no grievance raised by the petitioner, nor any representation in this regard filed for a period of almost seven years. After having reaped the benefits of order dtd. 8/3/2000, the petitioner raked up the issue of payment of arrears in SWP No. 1370/2007. As already stated above, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 18/4/2011 with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition and having regard to the rules occupying the field. The claim of the petitioner to the arrears for a period w.e.f. 28/3/1995 till 8/3/2000 was, thus, not decided by this Court on merits.