news details |
|
|
| DB seeks comments from government to end adhocism | | | EArly Times Report
Jammu, Aug 8: A Division Bench of J&K High Court has sought comments from the government to end adhocism in the departments.
The division bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal while hearing a petition observed that because of adhocism lot of litigation is being generated, this court would like to seek comments from the government as to how this system can be put to an end and all recruitments and promotions are made strictly in terms of the rules governing the post and not incharge basis.
The system is being followed despite strict observations made by the Supreme Court way back in the year 2000 in the case of Suraj Parkash Gupta’s case. A High Level Committee was directed to be appointed to examine the entire issue.
The DB further directed that the report of the committee so appointed be also placed before the Court. For the present information would be required from all the departments giving the following details, total sanctioned cadre strength in each of the cadres, the notified service Rules governing the post, number of posts to be filled up from different sources, such as direct, promotional (giving source of feeder cadre wise, wherever relevant), deputation etc number of actual employees working in each of the cadres. Whether the incumbents holding the posts are regularly recruited or promoted as per rules or given charge of the post concerned. If any of the employee has been given charge of a higher post, the date from which he is continuing on that post and the substantive post held by him and seniority list of each cadre, as on which date and when the same was circulated before finalization. If any of the seniority lists are still under finalization, reasons for delay. The DB observed that a reference to the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta’s case (supra) is also relevant in the case in hand.
The DB further observed that what is seen in the then State of J&K and now the Union Territory of J&K is that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is being complied with less and violated more, as practically in all the departments, promotions are being made on incharge basis. This practice is prevalent more in engineering department. The reasons therefore are not unknown. How an employee, who is substantively working on the lowest post, can be given the charge of a highest post in the department without there being regular promotions. No one knows their seniority position. It is the local adjustment made claiming that he is senior most available and there being a vacancy, he should be given charge of that. These employees continue working on that post for years together and whenever any transfer is sought to be made, they approach the court and persuade to grant interim relief and as a result of that, continue on the same position for years together. This course adopted by the different departments is generating avoidable litigation as many of the employees approach the court raising the plea that they are senior to the person who has been given charge of some higher post. Not only this such a course also demoralizes other employees in the department. This is resulting in adhocism in the working of different departments of the government. The duties, which are required to be discharged by senior and experienced persons is being handed over to the juniors.
The DB observed that the controversy in the case inhand, the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the Tribunal refusing to grant interim relief to him. He claimed that he was given the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, hence, could not have been reverted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The fact remains that in support of his plea that he was ever given charge of the post of Executive Engineer, there is no document produced on record by him except order dated 28.05.2019, vide which he was given the powers of Drawing and Disbursing Officer in respect of Engineering Division of Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir on account of retirement of the Executive Engineer working there. The same cannot be termed to be an order giving charge of the post of Executive Engineer to him to claim that before asking him to discharge the duties of I/c AEE, he should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing. Substantively the petitioner is Assistant Engineer.
The DB further observed that in the absence of any supportive documents to show that the petitioner was ever given the charge of post of Executive Engineer no prima facie, case is made out in his favour to grant him an interim relief. There is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
