Order On Board

16.12 .2024

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated

22.02.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1, by which the petitioner’s representation seeking retrospective seniority on the post of Tahsildar w.e.f. 01.04.2008 has been rejected.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of Nayab Tahsildar on 13.04.2000 (Annexure P/2) and after completion of 05 years of service on the said post, he became entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on 13.04.2005. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was allowed to work as in-charge Tahsildar on 04.11.2010 (Annexure P/5), but he was ultimately granted promotion to the post of Tahsildar on 27.04.2013 (Annexure P/8). After his promotion, the petitioner made representation before the State Government on 23.12.2015 (Annexure P/10) for grant of promotion from retrospective date, however, the said representation was rejected by the State Government vide the impugned order dated 22.02.2016 (Annexure P/1) finding no merit, against which this writ petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Saurabh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State Government is absolutely unjustified in denying promotion to the petitioner from retrospective date, as he had become entitled for promotion to the post of Tahsildar on 13.04.2005 after completion of five years of service on the post of Nayab Tahsildar, whereas, he was granted delayed promotion on 27.04.2013, against which he made representation on 23.12.2015, which has been denied by the respondent authority without any rhyme or reason and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. In this regard, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of P.N. Premachandran v. State of Kerala & Others ((2004) 1 SCC 245) and Major General H.M. Singh, VSM v. Union of India & Another ((2014) 3 SCC 670) to buttress his submission.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Tahsildar on 27.04.2013 and following that, he made representation claiming retrospective seniority w.e.f. the year 2008 for the first time on 23.12.2015 i.e. after a delay of 02 years. Thereafter, he filed this writ petition on 25.04.2016 in the wake of rejection of his representation by the State Government. As such, this writ petition suffers from delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In reply, Mr. Saurabh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had also made representations for grant of promotion in the year 2008-

2009 and again on 31.07.2010, as such, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Nayab Tahsildar on 13.04.2000 and after completion of 05 years of service on the said post, he became due for consideration for promotion to the post of Tahsildar. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and against the nine vacancies, a total of 22 candidates were in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, however, the name of the petitioner was not there. Ultimately, seven persons were promoted to the post of Tahsilar and as per the affidavit filed by the State on 29.03.2016, the case of Mr. Diley Ram Dahire and Ms. Silli Thomas were kept in closed envelope. Later on, Ms. Silli Thomas was granted promotion after completion of due formalities on 06.05.2008 and Mr. Diley Ram Dahire was granted promotion on 31.10.2012, and both were granted seniority from the date the other persons were promoted i.e. 24.01.2008. Furthermore, the petitioner’s contention that the names of Mr. Ashish Shrivastava and Ms. Garima Upadhyay were put in the zone of consideration for promot