Dismissed

Ramlal Verma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2023CW/24207/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the promotion of a private respondent to Office Assistant, arguing the respondent should not have been promoted due to a penalty imposed after the vacancy period but before the promotion order. The Court held the promotion was valid as assessment is based on record at vacancy accrual.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no interference required by the Court.

Ramlal Verma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/000293]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24207/2017

¶4

Ramlal Verma Son of Late Shri Chittarlal, aged 57 years, Additional Administrative Officer, Government Medical College - Kota and Resident of Shiv Mandir Road, Govind Nagar, Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Medical Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Principal & Controller, Government Medical College & Associate Group of Hospital, Kota.

¶9

Shri Keshav Chaturvedi Son of Late Shri Gopal Rai Chaturvedi, aged 66 years, Retired-Office Superintendent-Government Medical College, Kota & resident of 355-A, Talwandi, Kota.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Saksena, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶13

24/01/2023

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 22.11.2006, whereby the private respondent was promoted on the post of Office Assistant on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that promotion to the private respondent was given with effect from 01.10.2003 on availability of vacant post, however, the private

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/000293]

[CW-24207/2017]

respondent suffered the penalty which was imposed on him on 22.04.2003 and as such, at the time of considering his case, the relevant record was not looked into by the Departmental Promotion Committee and as such, the Tribunal ought to have interfered in the order of promotion, which was wrongly granted to the private respondent.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal while considering the case of present petitioner, has wrongly come to conclusion that the private respondent did not have any adversity in his record and as such, promotion accorded to the private respondent ought to have been set aside.

¶22

Learned counsel further submitted that though service record/eligibility of an employee for the purpose of promotion is adjudged on 01.04.2003 for a particular year against which promotion is made, however, if during currency of the vacancy period, any incumbent suffers penalty, the same is required to be looked into and as such, the Tribunal, without going into such important aspect of the matter, has passed the order impugned.

¶23

Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner has been subsequently promoted on the post of Office Assistant vide order dated 25.10.2012, however, the same has not remedied the grievance which was raised by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶25

This Court, on perusal of order dated 22.11.2006, finds that the private respondent was promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit against the vacancy of 2003-04.

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/000293]

[CW-24207/2017]

This Court further finds that the promotion to the private respondent was given on availability of vacant posts for the year 2003-04 and as such, there was a note appended to the promotion order that the respondent was to be considered for promotion against vacant post which became available on 01.10.2003.

¶30

This Court is afraid to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty which was suffered by the private respondent dated 22.04.2003 ought to have taken into account while according promotion to the private respondent.

¶31

The relevant record of an incumbent for the purpose of promotion has been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the date of accrual of the vacancies in a particular year and as such, if the vacancy was meant to be filled for the year 2003-04, the relevant record for such an incumbent was to be seen and subsequently if any penalty was imposed though within the currency of the vacancies, the same would not have made any difference as far as consideration of private respondent was concerned.

¶32

This Court finds that the Tribunal while considering the entire aspect of the matter came to conclusion that promotion to the private respondent was rightly accorded.

¶33

This Court further finds that the petitioner as well as the private respondents have also attained the age of superannuation and the petitioner has also been accorded the promotion on the post of Office Assistant by an order dated 25.10.2012.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/000293]

[CW-24207/2017]

This Court finds no error has been committed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal and as such, no interference is required by this Court.

¶38

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶39

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶40

Himanshu Soni/11

Ramlal Verma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal Verma 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

Shreeram Bansiwal S/O Girdhari Lal Vs Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (Rtdc)

Seema Gupta Vs University of Rajasthan

Lt. Col. Udai Singh Panwar S/O Dhonkal Singh Panwar Vs Union of India

Mali Ram Vs State Home Department Ors.

Rohit Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hemraj S/O Shri Bhagwana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan