The denial of promotion to an eligible employee, despite being similarly situated to another promoted employee, constitutes arbitrary discrimination and violates principles of fairness and natural justice.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2087/2010 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/4458/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

a) “Allow this writ petition of the petitioner.

b) Issue Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accord the benefit of promotion to the petitioner as D.T.P. Operator in the pay scale of 9300-34800+4200. Further direct the respondents to accord parity to the petitioner for the purpose of promotion in the aforesaid grade as has been done in case of proforma respondent No.6

c) Pass such other appropriate order as facts of the case demand and Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in favour of the petitioners.”

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The petitioner was initially appointed in Ranbir Government Press on 07.01.1978 as an Ink Feeder. Through dedication, merit, and suitability, the petitioner earned further promotions and has been serving as In charge DTP Operator since 2007. As per the Jammu & Kashmir Ranbir Government Press Rules, the post of DTP Operator is to be filled from among Senior Compasters. The seniority list reflects the petitioner’s name at Serial No. 4, making him eligible for promotion to DTP Operator.

b) The petitioner claims that a proforma respondent (No.6) was promoted as DTP Operator under Order No. 114 of 2010, dated 26.06.2010, in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 + 4200 GP, and the petitioner, being similarly situated and circumstanced as the promoted respondent, is entitled to the same benefit. The petitioner was due to retire on 31.08.2010 and argues that, being the senior-most Compaster, he was the only eligible candidate for the post of DTP Operator. Despite multiple representations, including one dated 12.08.2010, the authorities failed to take a decision before his retirement. The Hon’ble Minister Incharge Stationary & Printing J&K Jammu recorded an endorsement on 20.08.2010, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's request for promotional benefits on priority.

c) The petitioner contends that the failure to consider his case amounts to unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory treatment. Since respondent No. 6 was granted promotion before retirement, the petitioner should have been accorded the same treatment. The inaction of the respondents, despite clear rules and precedents, violates the principles of fairness and natural justice. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him the same promotional benefits and place him in the aforesaid pay scale.

4. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -

a) The respondents submit that the petitioner is neither similarly situated nor circumstanced as respondent No. 6 and is not entitled to any relief as claimed. Since the petitioner does not fall under the same category as the promoted respondent, the analogy of Government Order No. 114 of 2010 dated 26.06.2010 does not apply in his case. It is further submitted that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Barman in the Composing Section and was placed in the DTP Section only on a temporary arrangement. The order dated 15.11.2007, which governed his placement, clearly states that such an arrangement does not confer any preferential claim, right for re