1. Heard Mr.Deepak Aloriya, on behalf of Mr.Hardik Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Shakeel A.Qureshi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent-authorities.
2. The grievance raised in this petition is that the name of the petitioner, which is shown at Serial No.442, ought to have been shown at Serial No.338 in the cadre of Sub Inspector Clerk dated 30.07.1998. The facts, as pointed out by learned advocates, which led to this discrepancy in the seniority list, are as under:
2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector Clerk on 11th July 1978. On 18th May 1985, he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector Clerk. on 22nd August 1998, the said order of promotion was revoked on the ground that the petitioner was imposed with the order of censure dated 13th November 1984. Subsequently, the higher authority of the Department i.e. Director General, C.I.S.F., on 19th November,1985 set-aside the said order of censure, which was the basis for withdrawal of the said promotion order. Thereafter, on 21th December, 1985, petitioner made representation and the petitioner was promoted on original post on 23rd July 1986. But his seniority is counted as if the censure was not set aside and withdrawal of promotion on 22.08.1985 was justified. It is in this background that the petitioner is aggrieved and has approached this Court.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for respondents has vehemently argued and supported the action of the authorities by relying on the affidavit- in-reply.
4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it transpires that considering the date of promotion of the petitioner as on 23rd July,1986, the seniority of the petitioner was fixed by the authority at No.442. However, the basis for withdrawal of the promotion order itself was unavailable and therefore the date of the promotion of the petitioner, which was 18th May,1985, ought to have been maintained by the authorities, for the purpose of seniority. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute that if 18th May,1985 is taken to be the date of promotion of the petitioner, the seniority rank claimed by the petitioner at Serial No.338. Under these circumstances, Court finds substance in the grievance and claim of the petitioner in this petition and the same needs to be allowed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to seniority position at serial No.338 and is also entitled to all consequential benefits. It is directed that necessary consequential actions be taken by the authorities within a period of not more than nine months from today.
6. Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
dharmendra/24 (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)