Trilok Singh Vs. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1627 of 1988.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17353/85)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17353/85)
Petitioner: Trilok Singh
Respondent: Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1627 of 1988.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17353/85)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17353/85)
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 27, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Promotion
Promotion to the post of Senior Gestetner Operator in the Registry of the Delhi High Court – Appellant officiating in the promotional post since 1984 – Appellant’s promotion to be regularise from 1984.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave grante.
2. Hear learne counsel for the appellant an responent No.2. Responent No.1 has not chosen to appear in spite of notice.
3. The ispute in this matter is as to promotion to the post of Senior Gestetner Operator in the Registry of the Delhi High Court. It is a fact that the appellant was appointe as a peon on 19th April, 1967 while responent No.2, Nirmal, came to be so appointe on 12th August, 1968. The post of Senior Gastetner Operator is available to be fille up by promotion from the post of Junior Gestetner Operator which both these parties came to hol. When the question of filling up the vacancy of the Senior Gestetner Operator came to be consiere, the High Court on the basis of performance promote the secon responent in preference to the appellant. That gave rise to the ispute.
4. During the penency of this appeal here, the appellant has been appointe for a fixe perio from 1st March, 1988 to 28th February, 1989 as Senior Gestetner Operator. Counsel appearing for the appellant tells us that the appellant has been officiating as Senior Gestetner Operator with effect from February, 1984, without any break. In the absence of the responent No.1 before us we have not foun it convenient to ispose of the matter finally. In case the statement of the appellant’s counsel is correct that from February, 1984, in a unbroken chain the appellant has been serving in the promotional post, we suggest the High Court to regularise the same with effect from that ate so that the present promotion which has been given by the orer ate 9th March, 1988, may enure to his benefit from 1984. We have no intention to prejuice responent No.2 in any manner by this orer.
5. With these observations, the appeal is ispose of accoringly. No costs.
1. Special leave grante.
2. Hear learne counsel for the appellant an responent No.2. Responent No.1 has not chosen to appear in spite of notice.
3. The ispute in this matter is as to promotion to the post of Senior Gestetner Operator in the Registry of the Delhi High Court. It is a fact that the appellant was appointe as a peon on 19th April, 1967 while responent No.2, Nirmal, came to be so appointe on 12th August, 1968. The post of Senior Gastetner Operator is available to be fille up by promotion from the post of Junior Gestetner Operator which both these parties came to hol. When the question of filling up the vacancy of the Senior Gestetner Operator came to be consiere, the High Court on the basis of performance promote the secon responent in preference to the appellant. That gave rise to the ispute.
4. During the penency of this appeal here, the appellant has been appointe for a fixe perio from 1st March, 1988 to 28th February, 1989 as Senior Gestetner Operator. Counsel appearing for the appellant tells us that the appellant has been officiating as Senior Gestetner Operator with effect from February, 1984, without any break. In the absence of the responent No.1 before us we have not foun it convenient to ispose of the matter finally. In case the statement of the appellant’s counsel is correct that from February, 1984, in a unbroken chain the appellant has been serving in the promotional post, we suggest the High Court to regularise the same with effect from that ate so that the present promotion which has been given by the orer ate 9th March, 1988, may enure to his benefit from 1984. We have no intention to prejuice responent No.2 in any manner by this orer.
5. With these observations, the appeal is ispose of accoringly. No costs.
