The court held that a petitioner appointed as a Junior Clerk prior to a younger respondent was illegally denied seniority and promotion. The court enforced the petitioner is retiring in Jan 2019.
Directed the respondent to correct the seniority list and grant promotion plus all consequential benefits within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57219 of 2008 Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Shukla,B.K. Shukla,P.C.Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Pathak
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri P.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Ojha, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of U.P. The petitioner claims that his date of appointment as a Clerk in the said department is 25.01.1988, while his date of birth is 13.01.1959. One Sushila Devi, arrayed as respondent no. 5 was appointed as Clerk in the respondent department on 15.04.1988 and her date of birth is 01.07.1963.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 5 is junior to the petitioner in all respects. She was appointed subsequent to the petitioner and she is younger to the petitioner in age. The seniority of the employees has to be reckoned from the date of their appointment in service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to an undated seniority list which is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The said seniority list shows the name of the petitioner at serial no. 8 in the order of seniority while the name of Smt. Sushila Devi is at serial no. 6 in the seniority list. Thus in the seniority list the petitioner has been shown junior to person who were appointed subsequent to him. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
aforesaid seniority list.
The petitioner claims that the said Sushila Devi who is junior to the petitioner has been granted various promotional benefits whereas other benefits in light of the relevant government orders prior to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that his entitlement for promotion and other consequential benefits have been denied because of arbitrary and illegal seniority list drawn up by the respondent authorities.
The seniority list which is appended to the writ petition has not been disputed in the counter affidavit.
However, primafacie there is merit in the submission of the petitioner that he was appointed prior to respondent no. 5 and is senior to the said respondent. Consequently, he is entitled to promotion and all service benefits from the date his junior respondent no. 5, was given such benefits and promotion.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 could not seriously dispute the aforesaid facts and documents in the record.
The petitioner shall submit a representation to the respondent no. 2 raising the aforesaid claims. In case, after due verification of the claims and consistent with the observations made above the respondent no. 2 shall take steps to correct the seniority list and also ensure that all promotional and other consequential benefits are provided to the petitioner from the date the person junior to him in the seniority list was granted such benefits.
On the facts stated in the writ petition the said seniority list is not
sustainable in law. Since the petitioner is retiring in January 2019, the respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the entire claim and release all the benefits and grant him promotion within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to which the petitioner is found to be entitled.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Pravin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion and service benefits considering his earlier appointment date compared to a junior employee.
Whether the existing seniority list admitting a younger, later-appointed employee above the petitioner is legally sustainable.
Shailesh Kumar Pal
State Of U.P.
Sushila Devi
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
