U.P. JAL NIGAM Vs. S.C. ATRI & ANOTHER
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 300 of 1992
Petitioner: U.P. JAL NIGAM
Respondent: S.C. ATRI & ANOTHER
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 300 of 1992
Judges: S. Saghir Ahmad, K. Venkataswami & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 29, 1998
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978
Regulation 23(6) – Promotion – Fixation of seniority – Promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer – Adverse entry existing on the date of consideration for promotion – Promotion denied to respondents on that ground – Representation against the adverse remark pending with the employer – Subsequent promotion of the respondent after the adverse entry was expunged – Seniority of the promotee – High Court ordering seniority from the date on which the persons junior to the respondent were promoted. Held Court justified in directing so since on the date when he was considered no adverse entry existed consequent to its expunction.
U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978
Regulation 23(6) – Promotion – Fixation of seniority – Promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer – Adverse entry existing on the date of consideration for promotion – Promotion denied to respondents on that ground – Representation against the adverse remark pending with the employer – Subsequent promotion of the respondent after the adverse entry was expunged – Seniority of the promotee – High Court ordering seniority from the date on which the persons junior to the respondent were promoted. Held Court justified in directing so since on the date when he was considered no adverse entry existed consequent to its expunction.
Held:
The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequently, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. That being so, the High Court was justified in ordering that the respondent on being promoted, though subsequently, shall be entitled to reckon his seniority with effect from the date on which a person junior to him was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The respondent was an Executive Engineer in the U.P. Jal Nigam. He was considered for promotion to the post of Superin-tending Engineer along with certain other Executive Engineers but he was not promoted because on the date on which he was consid-ered for promotion there existed an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll, against which a representation, admittedly, was pending with the appellant. The representation was subsequently allowed on 10-8-1978 and by order dated 10-4-1979 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of a writ petition for a direction that his seniority may be restored in terms of Regulation 23(6) of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978. By order dated 9-10-1991, the writ petition was allowed and the direction was issued to the appellant to reckon the respondent’s seniority in accordance with Regulation 21 (3) and treat him to be promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted vide order dated 6-8-1977. The appellant was also di-rected to give all consequential benefits to the respondent.
2. Regulation 23(6) is quoted below:
“23 (6). The inter se seniority of persons promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer or Additional Chief Engineer shall be the same as it was in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion:
Provided that persons who were not promoted on account of unsuitability shall not, on promotion in any subsequent selec-tion, reckon the seniority and their seniority in the post to which they are subsequently promoted shall be fixed below those who are promoted earlier.”
3. This regulation provides that the inter se seniority of per-sons promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer shall be the same as in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion. The only exception is contained in the proviso to this regulation which says that if any person senior to others was not promoted on account of unsuitability and is promoted subsequent-ly, he would be treated as junior to persons already promoted.
4. On the date on which the respondent was considered along with other Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Superin-tending Engineer, there was an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll on account of which he was not promoted although a representation against the adverse entry was pending. This adverse entry was subsequently expunged as his representa-tion was allowed. The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequent-ly, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. That being so, the High Court was justified in ordering that the respondent on being promoted, though subsequently, shall be entitled to reckon his seniority with effect from the date on which a person junior to him was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. We are also informed that the respondent has since retired from service. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. The respondent was an Executive Engineer in the U.P. Jal Nigam. He was considered for promotion to the post of Superin-tending Engineer along with certain other Executive Engineers but he was not promoted because on the date on which he was consid-ered for promotion there existed an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll, against which a representation, admittedly, was pending with the appellant. The representation was subsequently allowed on 10-8-1978 and by order dated 10-4-1979 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of a writ petition for a direction that his seniority may be restored in terms of Regulation 23(6) of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978. By order dated 9-10-1991, the writ petition was allowed and the direction was issued to the appellant to reckon the respondent’s seniority in accordance with Regulation 21 (3) and treat him to be promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted vide order dated 6-8-1977. The appellant was also di-rected to give all consequential benefits to the respondent.
2. Regulation 23(6) is quoted below:
“23 (6). The inter se seniority of persons promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer or Additional Chief Engineer shall be the same as it was in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion:
Provided that persons who were not promoted on account of unsuitability shall not, on promotion in any subsequent selec-tion, reckon the seniority and their seniority in the post to which they are subsequently promoted shall be fixed below those who are promoted earlier.”
3. This regulation provides that the inter se seniority of per-sons promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer shall be the same as in the substantive post held by them at the time of promotion. The only exception is contained in the proviso to this regulation which says that if any person senior to others was not promoted on account of unsuitability and is promoted subsequent-ly, he would be treated as junior to persons already promoted.
4. On the date on which the respondent was considered along with other Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Superin-tending Engineer, there was an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll on account of which he was not promoted although a representation against the adverse entry was pending. This adverse entry was subsequently expunged as his representa-tion was allowed. The effect of the order allowing the expunction of the adverse entry would be that on the date on which he was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, there existed no adverse entry in his character roll. Subsequent-ly, it cannot be said that the respondent was not promoted on account of his unsuitability. That being so, the High Court was justified in ordering that the respondent on being promoted, though subsequently, shall be entitled to reckon his seniority with effect from the date on which a person junior to him was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. We are also informed that the respondent has since retired from service. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
