news details |
|
|
| Incharge arrangement can’t be treated as promotion: High Court | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 20: Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey in a significant judgment has stated that incharge arrangement of the petitioner can in no circumstances, be treated as a promotion and it does not give the petitioner any right over the said post.
The order was passed in a petition filed by Charanjit Kour Sudan seeking direction to regularize/ confirm/ promote the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer, on which post the petitioner was made incharge vide order No. 188 of 2018 dated 28th of May, 2018 read with corrigendum issued by the Corporation vide No.194 of 2018 dated 29th of May, 2018 and to give the effect of such confirmation/ regularization/ promotion retrospectively, i.e., the date from which the petitioner assumed the said charge.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey after hearing both the sides observed that merely asking an officer/ official, who substantively holds a lower post, to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. In such a case, the said officer/ official does not get the salary of the higher post, but only gets that in-service parlance known as the ‘charge allowance’. Such situations are contemplated where exigencies of public service necessitate such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it.
The concerned officer/ official continues to hold her substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement.
Justice while dismissing the petition observed that an incharge arrangement is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that, therefore, no rights, equities, or expectations could be built upon it asking an officer/ official, who substantively holds a lower post, merely to discharge the functions of a higher post cannot be treated as promotion. It is also well settled that when incharge arrangement is made, it has to be, as far as possible, for a short duration; not exceeding six months and such an arrangement does not confer any right whatsoever on the officer/ official holding the post on incharge basis, except entitling him/ her to the charge allowance. The basic idea of making incharge arrangement emanates from administrative reasons, however, ordinarily, any order governing such incharge position contains a stipulation that it shall be for a period of six months purely on temporary basis against available vacancies or till the posts are filled up under rules on regular basis by the DPC/PSC, whichever is earlier.
This stipulation has never been respected; instead position of inchargeship has been continued at all levels. It is not forthcoming as to why promotions on regular basis at every level are not referred to the DPC/PSC nor it is understandable as to why inchargeship is continued which, more often than not, appears to be with some design.
In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the respondents Corporation and merely because the petitioner has been placed as incharge on the post of Administrative Officer, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim that she had been regularly promoted on the said post or that on the basis of said services rendered by her, she deserves to be regularized/ confirmed/ promoted against the said post. This incharge arrangement of the petitioner can, in no circumstances, be treated as a promotion and it does not give the petitioner any right over the said post.
The said post has to be filled up by the respondent Corporation in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules governing the subject as well as the seniority position in vogue and, in the said process, the petitioner, if eligible, has a right of consideration alongwith all other eligible officers working in the Corporation. (JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
