Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Punit Kumar Shukla, holding brief of Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 25.12.1996, issued by the Deputy General Manager ( P & A) GAIL, U.P. Petro Chemicals Complex, Pata, petitioner has been appointed as Junior Engineer ( Chemical) at U.P. Petro Chemicals Complex, Pata, Auraiya. After completion of one year probation period, his services have been confirmed on 22.12.1997. The petitioner's services have been terminated vide order dated 18.9.2001. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal which has been decided vide order dated 27.11.2002. The appellate authority passed the following order:-
" And wherefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the undersigned vide Standing Order-41 read with Standing Order-32 of Certified Standing Orders of GAIL, is of the considered opinion that ends of justice shall be met with if Shri Mishra is given another opportunity to work and hereby orders for re-employment of said Shri G.S. Mishra placing him at the reduced stage in the time scale i.e. at the minimum of scale of pay he was holding prior to the removal from services of the company, which is now Rs. 7200/- ( open ended) (S-7 level). The period of his removal from services until re-employment in above terms shall be treated as ' dies on' i.e. it will not count for any purpose/ benefit, whatsoever".
The petitioner joined on 2.12.2012 as Junior Engineer. He has been granted promotion in the year 2007. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled for the promotion on completion of 4 years of his services as Junior Engineer.To this effect he filed a representation before the authority concerned, which has been rejected vide order dated 2.3.2006, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the earlier service of the petitioner from the year 1996 are taken into account, deducting the period of 'dies on' as per the order dated 22.11.2006, he would be entitled for promotion much prior to 2007.
The case of the respondent is that the petitioner has been given re-employment in pursuance of the appellate order dated 27.11.2002 on 2.12.2002 when the petitioner joined the services, therefore, 4 years have to be counted from the date 2.12.2002 and as such the petitioner, when become eligible for promotion, has been granted promotion.
We have considered the rival submissions ofthe learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A bare perusal of the order dated 27.11.2002, it is apparent that the petitioner's services have not been reinstated. The petitioner has only been given one opportunity to work by way of re-employment, therefore, it is not the case of re-instatement but is a case of re-employment.
In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any error in the view of the respondents, taking the period of 4 years from the date of re-employment.
The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.3.2014 n.u.