Allowed

Vijay Kumar Chhetry v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

Gauhati HC16 Aug 2022WP(C)/19/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Junior Engineer in AP Power Department, appointed in 1988, sought promotion to Assistant Engineer based on Recruitment Rules mandating 10 years for Diploma holders. Court directed Commissioner to examine service record and form a promotion committee within three months if gaps were found.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of the Government of AP (PWD) shall examine the petitioner's service record and, if he was not considered for promotion, constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee to look into the

Vijay Kumar Chhetry Vs The State of Ap and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040000582021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 19/2021

¶5

1:Vijay Kumar Chhetry

¶6

S/O LT. JIT BAHADUR CHETRY, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SAIKIA CHUBURI, MAZGAON, TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:The State of AP and 2 Others

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR.

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY (POWER) GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR.

¶11

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF POWER GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. L. Perme and Mr. Y. Riram.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA

¶16

Date of Hearing : 16.08.2022 Date of Judgment: 16.08.2022

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. L. Perme, learned standing counsel for the Power Department as well as Mr. Y. Riram, learned State counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶19

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Power Department in the year 1988 and he joined on 27.06.1988. The claim of the petitioner is that under the Arunachal Pradesh Administration (PWD) Group ‘B’ posts Recruitment Rules, 1983, there was an entitlement of the petitioner to have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer upon completing 10 years of service, in a situation where a petitioner is a qualified Diploma holder.

¶20

3. According to the petitioner, the Arunachal Pradesh Administration (PWD) Group ‘B’ posts Recruitment Rules, 1983, provides that 50% of the posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineer are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Junior Engineer Civil, having 5 years of regular service in respect of the Degree holders and 10 years of regular service in respect of the Diploma holders. The petitioner, having been appointed in the year 1988 an entitlement has accrued in his favor to be considered for promotion in the year 1998, when he had completed 10 years of regular service.

¶21

4. The grievance raised is that for the entire service period, the petitioner

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

continued as a Junior Engineer and was not promoted to the next higher rank of Assistant Engineer. It is stated that in lieu of such promotion, the petitioner was given the benefit of the MACP as entitled. Giving the benefit of MACP is an alternative to a person being promoted where it is a case of the authorities that promotion could not be given to such employee is because of the circumstances that prevailed. But, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CSIR, a person joins the Government service for an entire carrier and providing for a promotional avenue is a legal right.

¶24

5. In the instant case, it is taken note that 50% of the posts of Assistant Engineer in the PWD are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Junior Engineer, meaning thereby, that a clear promotional avenue was available under the Rules for the petitioner. It is difficult to comprehend that for the entire tenure of the service of the petitioner from the year 1988, no appropriate promotional avenue was available to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion.

¶25

6. It is stated that the persons similarly situated like that of the petitioner,who were also initially appointed as Junior Engineers, were promoted and some of them in the meantime have also retired from the service as Executive Engineers. In the circumstance, it has to be understood that the legal right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion has been violated in this instant case. It would be another matter if, the petitioner was considered but, was refused promotion because of any acceptable reason but, it cannot be a situation where for any reason, the petitioner would not be considered for promotion during his entire tenure.

¶26

7. It is stated that the petitioner will be retiring in the year 2024. In the

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

circumstance, the Commissioner of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh (PWD) shall examine the service record of the petitioner and if, the petitioner was not subjected to any consideration for promotion during his entire tenure, the Commissioner would do the needful to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee for looking into the claim of the legal right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the next higher rank of Assistant Engineer as per the relevant Rules as applicable to the Power Department. The required exercise be done within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶29

8. Writ petition allowed as indicated above.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Vijay Kumar Chhetry v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Chhetry v. The State of Ap and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xxx Vs in re - Nirmali Nyare Kino

Nirmali Nyare Kino Vs the State of Ap

Birun Camder Nyare Vs the State of Ap

Wilson Jerang and 19 Ors, Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Techi Deram Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Biman Phukan Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.