Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
PUNEET GUPTA, J.
Inder Singh Slathia S/o Shri Ganpat Singh Slathia - Petitioners
Vs.
State through, Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Housing and Urban Development Department, Civil Sectt.
SWP No. 177 OF 2005
Decided On :
(A) Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - The petitioner, appointed as Khilafwarzi Inspector, challenged the promotion of respondent No.4, claiming seniority based on a tentative seniority list. The court found that the tentative list was not finalized and that the petitioner could not claim parity with the respondent. (Paras 1, 5, 6)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - The court noted that the petition was delayed and hit by laches, as the respondent No.4 had retired and the promotions were not challenged. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed in 1991 and claimed seniority over respondent No.4, who was promoted to a higher pay scale in 2002. The petitioner sought to set aside the promotion order and be granted the same pay scale. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the tentative seniority list was not final and that the petitioner could not seek relief based on it. The promotions of respondent No.4 were valid and unchallenged. (Paras 5, 6)
Issues: The main issues were whether the tentative seniority list could be considered final and whether the petitioner was entitled to the same pay scale as respondent No.4. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the tentative seniority list does not confer any rights and that the petitioner’s claims were without basis due to the unchallenged promotions of respondent No.4. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Khilafwarzi Inspector on 29.04.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/- and is still in the same grade. The respondent No.4 entered the service as Khilafwarzi Inspector on 02.06.1992 in the grade of Rs.950-1500/-, however he is getting his salary in the grade of Rs.6500-10500/- with effect from 2003. The seniority list which was tentative one was issued wherein the petitioner figured at Serial No.4 and the respondent No.4 figured at Serial No.6. The petitioner was required to be upgraded in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- prior to the up-gradation of respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 was transferred as Secretary to Notified Area, Vijaypur vide Order No. 185-DLBJ of 2002 dated 18.06.2002 in the grade of Rs.5000-8000/-. The petitioner aggrieved by this order made a representation before the respondents; however, no reply was given to the said representation. The aforesaid order dated 18.06.2002 is challenged on the ground that the same is discriminatory qua the petitioner as the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4 as Khilafwarzi Inspector and, therefore, was required to be upgraded in the grade of Rs.5000-8000/- prior to the respondent No.4. The petitioner was also asked to function as Secretary is also mentioned in the petition. The petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 18.06.2002 and further seeks direction to allow the petitioner to hold the post of Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from 18.06.2002. It is further prayed that the petitioner be considered senior to the respondent No.4.
2. The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents.
The official respondents in their reply submit that the writ petition is delayed and is hit by latches. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on consolidated basis vide order dated 29.04.1991 in the grade of Rs.950-1500/- and thereafter he was given scale of Rs.900-1830/- vide order dated 25.03.1995. The respondent No.4 was appointed as Khilafwarzi Inspector vide order dated 02.06.1992 in the pay scale of Rs.900-1830/- and vide order dated 03.09.1992 he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- which later on was again given pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- pursuance to the clearance of the DPC. The petitioner was regularized in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- on 11.06.1992 in the lower pay scale and later on placed in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- on 25.03.1995. The petitioner cannot claim seniority vis-à-vis the respondent No.4. The seniority list is not finalized till date and what is reflected in the seniority list that petitioner is senior to respondent No.4 is wrong. The respondent no.4 has also filed objections wherein the said respondent has also taken the same plea and also submits that the name of the petitioner wrongly figures as senior to the respondent No.4 in the tentative seniority list issued by the respondents. He had even filed objections to the tentative seniority list issued by the respondents. The order transferring the respondent as Secretary is also valid and legal order. He further submitted that the petitioner was otherwise granted pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- in view of the judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 1312/1997 and which attained finality in the LPA also.
3. The rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner wherein more or less the petitioner has taken the same stand. The petitioner has also submitted of the order passed by the Director Local Bodies in April, 2017 whereby the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from November 22, 2000. The promotion granted to the respondent No.4 was not in terms of the Rules 2005 which are applicable to the employees of the department. In nut-shell, it is pleaded that the petitioner is entitled to the same grade as given to the respondent No.4 right from the day he entered the service.
4. The respondent No.4 has since retired and, therefore, no relief qua t
Tentative seniority lists do not confer rights; unchallenged promotions of a respondent negate claims for parity in pay scales.
The entitlement to seniority in the Seniority List of Inspectors Grade-I is determined by the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the 85th Amendment to the Constitution of India, and the catch-....
Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.
The Validation Act stipulates that service duration from adhoc appointments cannot influence seniority, confirming the petitioner’s senior status over the respondent.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
