Dismissed

Om Prakash Rana v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC7 May 2019WPSS/1890/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer, sought notional promotion to Assistant Engineer claiming entitlement under a 1997 Government Order. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that notional promotion is granted only when a junior is promoted before the senior employee's retirement, which was not the case here.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the appeal for notional promotion was dismissed as the corporate law on the matter prevents it.

Om Prakash Rana Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 1890 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Ms. Seema Sah, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.

¶4

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner served as Junior Engineer in Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., who retired from service on 31.01.2015. He claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer by making a representation, in which he relied upon a Government Order dated 23.08.1997. Petitioner’s representation was considered by the Competent Authority in Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., who passed an order on 22.09.2015 rejecting petitioner’s representation. Thus, feeling aggrieved by rejection of his representation, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶6

“I. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for records and to quash the impugned order dated 22.09.2015 passed by Deputy General Manager (Personnel) U.J.V.N. Ltd.

¶7

II. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for notional promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer, with effect from 27.1.2015, against which years vacancy his name was under consideration for DPC, keeping in view the seniority and eligibility of petitioner or with effect from 27.6.2015, on which date, the respondents have promoted junior to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electical & Mechanical)”

¶8

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government Order dated 23.08.1997 provides that a separate eligibility list should be made in respect of vacancies of different recruitment years and names of all eligible persons should be included in the eligibility list, even though the concerned employee is no more in service. He further submits that Government Order further provides that notional promotion can be given to a person only in a case where a person junior to a Government servant has been promoted and notional promotion can only be granted from the date of promotion of junior employee.

¶9

Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that no junior person was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer before petitioner’s retirement i.e. 31.01.2015. He further submits that a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) was scheduled to be held on 27.01.2015. A number of representations were received against the said D.P.C. by the members of service and before any decision could be taken on those representations, the Managing Director of the Corporation resigned, consequently, the D.P.C. could not meet on the scheduled date and time. After appointment of new Managing Director, another meeting of D.P.C. was held on 27.06.2015 and based on the recommendation of the said D.P.C, Mr. Sandeep Singh Negi, a person junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 27.06.2015. Thus, according to him, no junior person was promoted before petitioner’s retirement.

¶10

Petitioner has relied upon the Government Order dated 23.08.1997 in support of his contention that the petitioner ought to have been promoted as Assistant Engineer w.e.f.

¶11

27.06.2015 when a person junior to him was promoted. This contention cannot be accepted.

¶12

The Government Order dated 23.08.1997 although provides that a person, who has retired from service, may be included in the eligibility list, however, it nowhere provides that notional promotion has to be given to an employee after his retirement. Notional promotion can be given only from the date when the junior has been promoted. In the present case, Mr. Sandeep Singh Negi was promoted after five months of petitioner’s retirement.

¶13

Had it been a case where a junior person was promoted before petitioner’s retirement then petitioner had a right to be considered for notional promotion.

¶14

Since this is not the case here, therefore, this Court finds no scope for interference in this writ petition.

¶15

Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶16

There will be no order as to costs.

¶17

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

¶18

NEHA 07.05.2019

Om Prakash Rana v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Rana v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

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

Arjun Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary, Department Of Silk and Others

Naveen Chandra Pant Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sohan Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Saumyadeep Shukla Vs Uttarakhand Technical University Dehradun

Kushla Nand Tripathi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Padma Devi Vs Environment and Climate Change