Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fullerton India vs Jitendra Pal on 9 October, 2015
WP-9925-2015
(FULLERTON INDIA Vs JITENDRA PAL)
09-10-2015
Mr. R.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel Mr. Nityanand
Mishra is not available to argue the case.
A Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.9.2015 had
passed the following order:-
âShri P.K. Pandey, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, GA for State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to
move appropriate application for amendment in the
writ petition and to file rejoinder.
Let needful be done within two weeks otherwise on
the next date of hearing, the case would be heard
on its own merit.â
In view of aforesaid order passed by a Bench of this Court,
the right of the petitioner to file an application for amendment as
well as rejoinder stands closed.
Heard on the question of admission.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents
to accord him time bound up-gradation in accordance with the executive policy of the State Government dated 19.4.1999.
The respondents have filed the return in which inter-alia it is pointed out that the State Government had introduced executive policy vide circular dated 19.4.1999 with an object that the regular government servants should get atleast two up-gradations of pay- scale in their entire service tenure, if they have not been provided any promotion or up-gradation. A meeting of the departmental promotion committee was convened on 28.8.2006 for the purposes of screening the cases of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers, in which the case of the petitioner was also considered. The petitioner could not qualify the bench mark which was set up by the screening committee and in view of the adverse remark in the annual confidential report, the D.P.C. did not find him fit for the benefit of up-gradation of pay. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to rebut the averments made in the return. Therefore, the averments made in the return have to be accepted. It is well settled in law if an averment of fact is not denied it is taken to be admitted. [See: Naseem Bano (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. & others, (1993) Suppl. 4 SCC 46] and Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, A.I.R. 2004 SC 230.
For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Same fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge