Gauhati High Court
Paramjit Singh vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 13 December, 2018
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010026622016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 5999/2016
1:PARAMJIT SINGH
VILL. MEYAL, P.O. RAKHPUR, DIST. KANGRA, H.P. PRESENTLY SERVING
AS RIFLEMAN/ GD GENERAL DUTY AT 36 ASSAM RIFLES, C/O 99 APO.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI -110001.
2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA -11.
3:THE COMMANDANT
36 ASSAM RIFLES
C/O. 99 APO
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
ORDER
Date : 13-12-2018 Heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
Page No.# 2/2 The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner entered service as a Rifleman/Follower in Assam Rifle in the year 1994 and he was remustered as Rifleman (GD) on his request in the year 1998.
According to the petitioner, the seniority list was framed in the year 2002, in which the name of the petitioner is placed at serial No. 35 and as such, he was in the zone of consideration for promotion to the higher post of Havildar (GD). Accordingly, when the DPC held in the year 2015, his case was duly considered and recommended for promotion and he was given promotion vide order dated 27.06.2015. However, the said promotion order was cancelled, vide order dated 19.08.2015, which has been challenged herein.
On the other hand, it is the stand of the Government that the petitioner had been wrongly placed in the said seniority list at serial No. 35 as the seniority has to be counted from the date of remusteration and not from the date of initial entry in the service. If that is so, the petitioner would be low in the seniority list and in the correct seniority list, he has been placed at 151.
The case of the petitioner is that the seniority was published in 2002 which could not be changed and even the subsequent seniority list relied upon by the respondent was never made known to the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, let the respondent authorities file an affidavit as to whether any seniority list was published in 2002 in which the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 35 and if so, the notification may be produced. Secondly, whether any subsequent seniority list was again published in the year 2015, if so, the copy of the said notification also may be produced.
List the matter on 24.01.2019.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant