The timing of the merger orders and promotion orders significantly influenced the entitlement to promotion and arrears of salary.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM aPPL. 9806-07/2022

1. allowed, subject to just exceptions.

LPa 137/2022

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single judge dated 23.12.2021, passed in W.P.(C.) 15010/2021.

3. The reliefs sought for by the appellants in the writ petition have been culled out in the impugned order.

3.1. The first relief that the appellants sought in the writ petition, in effect, concerns revision of the seniority list dated 22.11.2018. Interlinked with this relief was the merger of the two grades i.e., Junior Library and Information assistant [in short 'JLIa'] with Senior Library and Information assistant [in short 'SLIa']. The record shows that the merger took place on 03.01.2019albeit w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

3.2. The second relief which the appellants sought was to promote them from the post of SLIa to the next post i.e., assistant Librarian and Information Officer [in short, 'aLIO'] w.e.f. the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] convened and recommended respondent no.3 i.e., one Ms Geeta Yadav for promotion.

3.3. The third and final relief which the appellants sought in the writ petition was that a direction be issued to respondent no.2 i.e., Nehru Memorial Museum & Library for payment of arrears of salary arising following the refixation of pay after the merger of JLIa with SLIa.

4 The learned single judge having considered the matter, has allowed the writ petition with regard to the third relief sought by the appellants i.e., grant of arrears of salary.

4.1. The appellants had indicated to the learned single judge that they had been paid a lump-sum amount of Rs. 7 lakhs each. The learned single judge, taking this assertion into account, has directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the request of the appellants for payment of balance amount having regard to the order of merger dated 03.01.2019.

4.2. The said respondents i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2 have been directed to render their decision with regard to arrears, if payable, within six weeks from the date of the impugned judgment.

5. However, insofar as the first two reliefs are concerned, the learned single judge has repelled the contention of the appellants.

5.1 Importantly, the learned single judge has returned a finding that respondent no.3 i.e., Ms Geeta Yadav was shown at the top of the seniority list dated 22.11.2018.

6. It is not in dispute that the seniority list issued on 22.11.2018 was a 'draft' seniority list; however, what is not in dispute is that the draft seniority list was published with a caveat, which was that objections, if any, to the seniority list had to be filed within three days, failing which the said seniority list would be treated as a final seniority list.

6.1. although Mr Harsh Panwar and Mr S.M. Srivastav, who appear on behalf of the appellants, attempted to convey that objections were filed qua the said seniority list, on being queried, they could not draw our attention to any such document on record.

6.2. On a closer questioning, both Mr Panwar and Mr Srivastav conceded that objections though filed, were not placed before the learned single judge. We suspect that objections were not filed vis-a-vis the said seniority list and if they were filed, they were not filed within the three days window provided by respondent nos.1 and 2.

6.3. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned single judge was right that since the merger took place only on 03.01.2019, respondent no.3 i.e., Ms Geeta Yadav was senior to the appellants as she was appointed to the SLIa grade w.e.f. 12.11.2012.

6.4. Consequently, the learned single judge, once again, correctly, in our view, has held that she was entitled to promotion to the next higher post i.e., that of aLIO. This promotion was granted to respondent no.3 i.e., Ms Geeta Yadav via order dated 01.10.2019 and consequently pay was fixed via order dated 30.10.2019.

6.5. The observations in this behalf are contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment. Fo