The absence of defined promotional avenues for a Store Ledger Clerk, whose duties are equivalent to Clerks, violates the principle of equal treatment in public service, necessitating career progression opportunities.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to create further promotional avenues for the post presently held by the present petitioner i.e. Store Ledger Clerk by framing and notifying recruitment and promotion Rules for the aforesaid post.

ii). In the alternative issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to merge retrospectively the post presently held by the present petitioner i.e. Store Ledger Clerk with the cadre of Clerks and consider the case of the present petitioner for further promotion in the merged cadre.

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the case at hand.”

2. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar in IPH Division No.1, Shimla, w.e.f. 01.09.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was made to work in different capacities viz Supervisor, Store Ledger Keeper, Store Munshi and Store Ledger Clerk. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.01.1995 as Store Ledger Clerk.

3. Petitioner repeatedly represented to the respondents to merge the post of Store Ledger Clerk in regular cadre of clerks as there were no independent R & P Rules for the post of Store Ledger Clerk and such post was not even the feeder category for any promotional post. Having failed to secure any positive response from the respondents, the petitioner had filed CWP No. 302 of 2011 in this Court.

4. Petitioner has made specific averments regarding the nature of duties performed by him as Store Ledger Clerk. Petitioner has submitted that the duties performed by the petitioner as Store Ledger Clerk were identical to the duties performed by Senior Assistant/Clerk. Since, the petitioner was to stagnate on the same post throughout his career, petitioner had claimed either to create promotional avenues for the post of Store Ledger Clerk or in alternative to merge the same into the regular cadre of Clerks.

5. The respondents have admitted the facts that the petitioner had been performing the duties as Beldar, Supervisor, Store Ledger Keeper, Store Munshi and Stone Ledger Clerk while he remained on daily wages. The fact that the petitioner was regularized as Store Ledger Clerk has also not been denied. The defence raised by the respondents is that there are few and isolated posts of Store Ledger Clerk and therefore no specific duties have been defined for such post in the office manual. The absence of specific R&P Rules for the post of Store Ledger Clerk has also been stated to be the reason for denying the claim of petitioner. It is further the case of the respondents that the post of Store Ledger Clerk cannot be equated or merged with the regular clerical cadre as there are specific R & P Rules for the post of Clerks and their duties are specifically defined in the office manual. As per the respondents, the duties of Store Ledger Clerk and Clerks are entirely different. As regards, the allegation of stagnation, the respondents have stated that it has floated an Assured Career Progression Scheme, by virtue of which, provision for higher scale after 8, 16, 24 and 32 years has been made applicable in case the official does not get promotion by such time.

6. While filing the rejoinder, the petitioner has placed on record the information received by him under RTI Act to establish that there was no difference between the Store Ledger Clerk and the Clerks in so far as the performance of duties was concerned.

7. CWP No. 302 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 21.03.2012 in following terms:-

“6. Submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme cannot be accepted for the reason that it already stands abolished. On the question that he has been granted benefit of higher pay scale, the petitioner would otherwise be entitled to the increments. This sub