IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Shri Moli Tatu, S/o Late Semmo Riba – Appellant
Versus
The State Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
WP(C) 297 of 2021
Decided on : 05-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge regarding promotion regularization (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against prospective promotion decisions (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. determination of retroactive promotion date (Para 28 , 29) |
| 4. entitlement to retrospective regularization (Para 50 , 51 , 53 , 54) |
| 5. court's directive for fresh dpc meeting (Para 57) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional A.G for the State Respondents.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners, three (3) in numbers have challenged the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 07.09.2020 and the consequent order No. Sectt/PHE(Estt)-161/2012 Pt-I/631 dated 05.10.2020 whereby services of the petitioners as adhoc Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Health Engineering & Water Supply Department (“PHE&WS” in short) have been regularized w.e.f. the date of DPC i.e. 07.09.2020. The petitioners have prayed for a direction for regularization/promotion of the services of the petitioners as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PHE&WS Department with retrospective effect w.e.f. the date of adhoc-promotion i.e. 09.05.2006 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and 06.06.2006 in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and for grant of consequential benefits.
3. The petitioners are working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) [AE(C) in short] in the Department of PHE&WS, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are Graduates in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and they were initially selected and appointed as Junior Engineers (JE in short) in the erstwhile Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order dated 10.06.1994. Thereafter, on the bifurcation of the Department of Rural Works and after creation of Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were absorbed with the Department of PHE. The petitioner No. 3 is also a Graduate in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and was appointed as JE in PHED vide order dated 29.08.1996.
4. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order No. PHE/Sectt-04/96 dated 13.03.2001, had regularized the services of twenty-one (21) AEs under PHE Department with retrospective effect from the date of adhoc-promotion as AE. The petitioners have requisite length of service in the cadre of JE in terms of Recruitment Rules, 1996 as amended in 2005. On vacancies that arose against the promotional quota, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh promoted the petitioners to the post of AE(C) in PHE&WS Department on adhoc basis with scale of pay and other benefits as that of regular AEs on the vacancies against the promotional quota. The petitioner No. 1 was promoted as AE(C) vide order dated 09.05.2006 and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were promoted as Assistant Engineer on adhoc-basis on 06.06.2006 (issued on 07.06.2006) with the scale of pay of AE(C) plus other allowances permissible under the Rules from time to time. The petitioner No. 1 was promoted as AE on adhoc basis in the existing vacancy which arose due to retirement of one Shri Pankajakshan on 30.04.2006. The petitioner No. 2 on the existing vacancy of one Shri Toney Ete on 17.05.2006 and the petitioner No. 3 was promoted on the existing vacancy that arose due to promotion of one Shri P.K. Dey on 29.05.2006.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the Recruitment Rules, 1996, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were eligible for being considered for promotion as far back as on 26.06.1999 and 18.07.1999 in terms of the gradation list dated 14.05.1999 and the petitioner No. 3 became eligible on 06.09.2001. However, no Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC” in short) was held from 1999 to 2000. The DPC was held in the year 2001 pursuant to which juniors of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were promoted as AE(C) and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were deprived of their right to be considered for promotion. Being aggri
Class II Engineer Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1990) 2 SCC 715
D.N. Agarwal v. State of MP, 1990 2 SCC 553
Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2019) 6 SCC 647
Ganga Vishan Gujarati and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
I.K. Sukhija v. Union of India
Keshav Deo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Meyom Karge vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh
P. Sudhakar Rao vs. U. Govind Rao reported in (2013) 8 SCC 693
Pawan Pratab Singh vs. Reevan Singh reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267
Suraj Prakash Gupta vs. State of J&K
Santosh Kumar vs. State of J&K reported in (2003) 5 SCC 511
State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath
Santosh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Union of India and Anr. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam and Ors.
Techi Jobac vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Union of India vs. N.R. Bannerjee
Union of India and Anr. vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 105
If an appointment is made by way of stop gap arrangement without considering claims of all the eligible available persons and without following rules of appointment, experience on such appointment ca....
Promotion effective from date granted, not vacancy date; DPC recommendations advisory, no right to retrospective effect despite litigation delays; ad hoc promotions regularized notionally from ad hoc....
Promotion rights are not absolute; retrospective promotions require clear vacancies and adherence to procedural rules, which were not met in this case.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
Adhoc service beyond promotional quota and dehors rules, even if continuous till regularization, cannot be counted for seniority or benefits as it is stop-gap and fortuitous.
Promotion and seniority can only be awarded retrospectively when vacancies exist at the time of officiating promotions, and the Department must reevaluate claims based on factual evidence.
Court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding promotion and seniority must adhere to established rules and principles, ensuring equitable treatment for all eligible individuals.
Seniority is to be counted from date of substantive appointment and substantive appointment means, an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on a post in cadre of service, made after selection....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.