Supreme Court of India
Jai Ram Sharma vs Jammu Development Authority on 19 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (5), 369 1996 SCALE (4)449, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 151, 1996 (9) SCC 214, 1996 AIR SCW 4310, (1996) 5 JT 369 (SC), (1996) 2 IJR 650 (SC), 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1764, 1996 SCC (L&S) 1220, (1996) 73 FACLR 1702, (1997) 2 LABLJ 385, (1997) 4 LAB LN 514, (1996) 3 SCT 313, (1996) 4 SERVLR 35, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1764, (1996) 2 CURLR 502
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
PETITIONER: JAI RAM SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (5) 369 1996 SCALE (4)449 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated February 10, 1995 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in LPA No.77 of 1990. The admitted position is that while the respondent NO.5, P.N. Jalla, was on deputation as senior Steno, the appellant was appointed on regular basis as Office Superintendent. For the post of Public Relations Officer, he is required to be considered for promotion on regular basis. Instead of promoting him on regular basis, the deputation is was considered and promoted. The appellant challenged the said action by way of writ petition which was not properly considered be the Division Bench. When the matter had come up for. admission, this Court on August 21, 1995 had passed the following order;
"Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner does not require payment of back-wages but his due seniority is to be considered according to rules. The 3rd respondent was only a senior stenographer from Govt. service and was on deputation. While the petitioner is a regular employee and is entitled to be considered, when the vacancy of Public Relations Officer had arisen, he was not considered, Since he Single Judge has given the direction correctly, the Division Bench was not right in upsetting that order from the date on which he was due to be considered. In view of the fact that he is not claiming any arrears and the 5th respondent has retired from service, notice is issued to the State as to why the petitioner's seniority should not be taken from the date when the vacancy as P.R.O. had arisen and he was due for consideration but was not considered along with the 5th respondent".
Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent contending that appellant's seniority was considered with effect from the date when the vacancy had arisen after the retirement of the 5th respondent. The above action is obviously illegal and an arm twist to nepotism. When the appellant was a regular candidate as Office Superintendent, he was entitled to be considered in preference to the deputationist, who is not a member of the service as on that date. He was wrongly denied of his legitimate right to be considered for appointment on the date when the 5th respondent was appointed. It is, therefore, directed that the appellant must be considered to have been regularly appointed with effect from the date on which the 5th respondent was promoted as P.R.O. and in terms of the order passed by this Court. His entitlement would be considered according to the rules within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.