Point of Law: where the appointment is temporary or irregular in any manner, reversion should be carried out within a reasonable period and, therefore, reversion of the appellant therein from the post of District Inspector of Local Funds (Accounts) after 11 years was not justified and accordingly the order of reversion was set aside

JUDGMENT :

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) release the entire pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn of the post of Private Secretary a long with interest on delayed payment @ 18% per annum.

(i-a) quash and set aside the order dated 27.08.2016.

(ii) make payment of arrears of DA to the petitioner for the month of January and February, 2015.

(iii) release payment of actual benefits of increments for the period from 1986 to 2001 and arrears thereof and interest thereon for the delayed payment @ 18% per annum.

(iv) exemplary cost may also be imposed on the respondents on account of harassment and mental agony and financial distress suffered by the petitioner after his retirement.

(v) pass such further order or directions in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC-cum-Steno Typist in the Office of Advocate-on-Record for the State of Rajasthan Supreme Court, New Delhi vide Government order dated 13.09.1978. Later, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of LDC vide Government order dated 29.04.1982. It was further submitted that one post of Stenographer was created by the Government of Rajasthan in the Office of Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court, New Delhi and after consultation with the Deputy Secretary General Administration Department, DOP and Office Management when none was available for appointment in the said Office at Delhi, a decision was taken by the Law Department to conduct a test for recruitment by inviting applications at Supreme Court, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, the post was notified and applications were invited. The then Director Litigation decided to conduct the test and it was ordered that the present petitioner may also be intimated about the same. Thereafter, the shorthand and typing test was conducted at New Delhi on 04.11.1985, wherein the petitioner qualified for being appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade-II and accordingly he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Stenographer vide order dated 08.11.1985. It was further submitted that subsequently vide order dated 29.04.1998, the petitioner was regularized under the provisions of Proviso 8-A of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1957”) as such his appointment on the post of Stenographer was in accordance with law.

4. It was further submitted that vide order dated 27.11.1998, the order dated 29.04.1998 was modified directing that the petitioner would be entitled for annual grade increments of the post of Stenographer from the year 1986. Later on the petitioner was appointed as Private Secretary in the Office of Advocate General of the State on ad-hoc basis vide detailed reasoned note-sheet dated 12.03.2001 and order dated 13.03.2001. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Private Secretary on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 12.01.2006 and retired from the said post in substantive capacity vide order dated 28.02.2015 of the then Advocate General.

5. Learned counsel submitted that after retirement when the petitioner was not paid the retiral benefits, leave encashment etc. he served notice for demand of justice and thereafter, preferred the instant writ petition claiming the reliefs, as quoted hereinabove. It was contended that surprisingly vide order dated 27.08.2016, the cadre of the petitioner was changed treating him in the cadre of LDC/UDC/OA/OS and he was treated as Office Superintendent. Accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 20,210/- on the day of his retirement i.e. 28.02.2015, whereas the petitioner was drawing Rs. 33,360/- at the time of his retirement.

6