news details |
|
|
| Finally, ex-RTO gets lease of life after 14 years litigation | | |
EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Feb 23: Division Bench of J&K High Court, Jammu Wing, comprising Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Justice Gh. Hasnain Massodi came to the rescue of RTO Brij Mohan Sharma who retired on October 31, 1996 seeking pay-grade for the pensionary benefits, upheld the judgment of the writ Court with the observations that no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of writ Court under appeal.
The petitioner was an Assistant Regional Transport officer. On November 13, 1992 , he was appointed temporarily as RTO and was asked to work RTO in his own pay and grade till such time regular appointment is made under the KAS Rules. The order made it clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to charge allowance as admissible under rules. The petitioner started getting remuneration inclusive salary and charge allowances equal to the pay of RTO. Petitioner continued to serve in such capacity till his retirement on October 31, 1996, and after his retirement for the purpose of calculation of pension, his salary was to be taken note of and not charge allowance, petitioner’s pension become much less than that he would had got, had he been treated to have retired as RTO entitled to pay scale applicable to RTO.
He filed a petition, which was considered, very important aspects not brought to the notice of the Court namely that in accordance with rules charge allowance is payable only for a period of six months and not beyond, and that despite petitioner discharging duties of RTO for almost four years, his case for induction into KAS was not considered.
Single Judge observed that clause (b) of the Govt instructions is applicable and accordingly concluded the matter. The Division Bench also of the view that clause (b) of the said instruction was applicable in the instant case.
DB after hearing all sides observed that in the event, petitioner was asked to discharge duties in his own pay scale without charge allowance, it would have been obligatory on the part of the appellant’s state to obtain clearance of the DPC within a reasonable period from the day he was so asked to discharge such duties which was not done in the present case. In the memorandum, it has been stated that petitioner was not a contender in accordance with the rules. The petitioner could not contend to be selected for promotion to the higher post. He could only be selected for promotion to the higher post provided he came within the zone of consideration for being so considered with in the period he served in the higher post. Neither the objection to the petitioner nor the memorandum of appeal supplied any information there with.
With these observations, DB dismissed the appeal with the direction that petitioner be paid the amount of money lying deposited to the credit of this appeal along with interest, if any. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
