Dismissed

Narendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2009CW/3034/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the declaration of surplus of a Forest Guard. The court held that seniority must be determined by the initial date of appointment, not the time of joining on the day, rejecting claims that the petitioner joined earlier in the day than others.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the seniority list placing the petitioner junior.

Narendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

SBCWP NO.3034/02.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

BENCH AT JAIPUR.

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3034/2002.

¶7

Narendra Singh

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶10

Date of order:- March 13, 2009.

¶11

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶12

Shri Harish Agrawal on behalf of Shri Satish Chandra Mittal for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel.

¶13

¶14

BY THE COURT:-

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order Annexure-2 by which petitioner Forest Guard was shown junior to Nandan Singh and Raja Ram and was declared surplus for being absorbed in the office of Chief Conservator of Forest Bikaner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was wrongly shown at Sr.No.3 because he joined at Bharatpur earlier than those two persons. While petitioner joined in the forenoon of 14/7/1997, they joined in the afternoon on that

¶17

SBCWP NO.3034/02.

¶18

¶19

date. It was contended that there was no question of petitioner being declared surplus and those persons being retained. In the order dated dated 23/2/1999 (Annexure-3), name of the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.3 above both the persons.

¶20

Respondents in reply to the writ petition have clarified that petitioner as well as Nandan Singh and Raja Ram earlier joined on 14/7/1997 and in the order Annexure-1, it was clearly stated that reflection of their names in the said order was not final and that determination of their seniority would be made after receipt of the service record. It was found from the service record that initial dates of appointment of Nandan Singh, Raja Ram and Narendra Singh (petitioner) was 25/1/1986, 28/11/1980 and 27/3/1987, respectively. Therefore, petitioner being appointed on 27/3/1987, was treated junior to them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the seniority list dated 20/5/2002 in which name of the petitioner had been shown at Sr.No.90 whereas names of Nandan Singh and Raja Ram were shown at Sr.No.88 and 89, respectively. 4) As per the stand taken by the respondents, it is clear that the final seniority list was issued on 20/5/2002 in which petitioner was shown junior to above referred to two persons. This final seniority list has not been challenged nor has the

¶21

SBCWP NO.3034/02.

¶22

¶23

petitioner impleaded Nandan Singh and Raja Ram as party respondents to this writ petition. In any case, order in question has now been given effect to. Mere reflection of the name of the petitioner above Nandan Singh and Raja Ram in the office order dated 23/2/1999, would not make him senior because it was clearly stated therein that reflection of their names in the said order was not final and that determination of their seniority would be made after receipt of the service record. Fact that petitioner joined in Bharatpur Division in forenoon session and those others in the afternoon session, will also not make him senior because factual basis of determination of seniority was the date of initial date of appointment.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶26

anil

Narendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R P Sharma Vs U O I and Ors.

Vakil Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Om Prakash Vs the Director Secondary Educati

Kajor and Ors. Vs the Sec P W D Jaipur and Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Pareek Vs the Chief Engineer P W D Jaipu

Damodar Prasad Sharma Vs the Director Elementary Educat