Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Nafees Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy./Secy. ... on 28 July, 2021
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 8 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6435 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Nafees Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy./Secy. Irrigation Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for respondent - State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of notional promotion on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical).
3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Tubewell Operator and vide order dated 29.08.1997 his service was regularized on the said post.
4. The petitioner is holding the diploma certificate in mechanical engineering and as per rules applicable, on completion of ten year's service, he is entitled for grant of promotion on the post of Junior Engineer, Mechanical. He filed a representation for consideration of his claim but the same was not taken into consideration and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 21.10.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to retirement, the petitioner made available diploma certificate of mechanical engineering, which was required for consideration of his claim for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer, Mechanical but the respondents have not considered his claim.
6. He further submitted that due to non grant of promotion, the petitioner has filed a representation, wherein he has claimed that he may be considered for grant of promotion on the post of Junior Engineer on notional basis, so that he may be granted benefit of the post of Junior Engineer and accordingly, the other benefits available to him may be provided.
7. On the other hand, learned ACSC submitted that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner has not made available copy of diploma certificate of mechanical engineering to the respondent - department, therefore, his claim was not considered for grant of promotion. He submitted that the certificate was made available six months prior to his date of retirement and thereafter, he retired from service on 21.10.2017.
8. He further submitted that in case the petitioner is claiming notional promotion, his claim shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed in this regard within a reasonable period.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. To resolve the controversy, the provisions contained in Rule 5(3) and 8(?) of ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? (???????) ???? ???????? 1992 are being quoted below.
5 . ????? ?? ?????- ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????
(1 ) ..........................
(2 ) .......................
(3 ) 10 ??????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????, ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????????? ??? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? 8 ?? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ???, ???????? ??????;
8. ??????? ???????? - ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? -
(?) ............ .........................
(?) ????????? ?????? ??????, ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ????????; ??
(?) .............................
11. On its perusal, it is evident that the 10% promotion shall be made from the candidates who have completed ten year's service and who posses the requisite eligibility as prescribed under Rule 8 of aforesaid rules and is having a diploma certificate in mechanical engineering recognized from Board of Technical Education.
12. On perusal of material on record, it is evident that the petitioner is having diploma certificate in mechanical engineering from a recognized institution and in view of the provisions referred hereinabove, he is entitled for consideration of his claim for grant of notional promotion.
13. On overall consideration, it is apparent that the respondents have illegally deprived the petitioner from the zone of consideration of his claim.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
15. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of notional promotion as and when became due in accordance with Rule 5(3) and 8(?) of ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? (???????) ???? ???????? 1992 and to pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is also clarified that the consequential benefits in pursuance thereof shall also be released in favour of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Adarsh K Singh