news details |
|
|
| ARTO’s seniority case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 5: In an LPA filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government against the judgment passed by Single Judge directing the state to grant selection grade to the petitioner respondent, a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Justice Sunil Hali dismissed the appeal as time barred.
After hearing Additional Advocate General Gagan Basotra for the appellant and Shivani Jalali Advocate appearing for the respondent, the DB observed that in the circumstances, there being nothing on record which would suggest that the petitioner was not senior to Madan Lal there is hardly any scope for interference in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
According to the case the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the grant of selection grade in favour of two of his colleagues who were junior to the petitioner. The petition was not contested by any of the respondents. The single judge while rendering the judgment under appeal took note of the fact that two of the respondents who were granted selection grade were junior to petitioner and accordingly passed the judgment, which was challenged by the state of J&K & Ors.
The facts remain that petitioner was promoted to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector on November 16, 1974; Madan Lal the other colleague who was accorded selection grade was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector on September 19, 1994. In such view of the matter petitioner should be deemed to be senior to Madan Lal while both of them are Motor Vehicle Inspectors. It appears that petitioner and Madan Lal were promoted to the ARTO on January 12, 1998. The petitioner was senior to Madan Lal in the feeder post of MVI, in law; it must be deemed that petitioner was senior to Madan Lal in the promoted post of ARTO since both of them were promoted on the same date.
In the LPA it has been contended that petitioner was not confirmed on the post of ARTO. It appears that vide Government order dated April 12, 1999 petitioner as well as Madan Lal were accorded the pay-scale of ARTO with effect from January 12, 1998. There is one more contention in the appeal that petitioner was a MVI (Technical) whereas the feeder post for the post of ARTO is MVI (Survey). It is the contention that the petitioner may not have had been properly promoted to the post of ARTO and petitioner was asked to officiate the post of ARTO since January 12, 1998. Thereupon he was recognized as ARTO with effect from January 12, 1998. It is too late and that too in an appeal of this nature to contend that the promotion accorded to petitioner as back as on April 12, 1999 was inappropriate. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
