2004 (2) TMI 739 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appointment order dated 21.7.1995 for a Peon provisionally appointed as a dispatch clerk from 1.8.1995; Claim for appointment from 8.7.1986; Legality of orders dated 8.7.1986, 21.7.1995, and 3.9.1997; Compliance with Circulars for appointments on class IIIrd post; Remittance of matter to Secretary for fresh enquiry; Examination of petitioner's claim for appointment from 1.8.1986 with monitory benefits; Initiation of enquiry against illegally appointed/promoted employees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The writ petition challenged the order dated 21.7.1995, appointing a Peon provisionally as a dispatch clerk from 1.8.1995. The petitioner claimed appointment from 8.7.1986. The legality of orders dated 8.7.1986, 21.7.1995, and 3.9.1997 was questioned, as the legal basis for these orders was not demonstrated by the parties.

2. The petitioner had officiated as a dispatch clerk from 8.1.1986 to 7.7.1986 due to the clerk's leave. However, the appointment on 8.7.1986 was provisional and lacked approval by the headquarters. The subsequent history of appointments and recommendations was detailed, including a writ petition disposed of on 6.4.1995 with directions to the Superintending Engineer.

3. The Court noted that the Superintending Engineer's actions were driven by the difficulty in rectifying past illegalities in promotions. The petitioner's representation led to an order on 3.9.1997 appointing him from 1.8.1986 without monitory benefits. The Circulars for appointments on class IIIrd post were found to have not been followed.

4. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with Circulars operative at the time of passing orders. The matter was remitted to the Secretary for a fresh enquiry to determine the correctness of the past orders and the petitioner's claim for appointment from 1.8.1986 with monitory benefits. An enquiry against illegally appointed/promoted employees was also directed.

5. The Secretary was tasked with completing the enquiry within two months and providing the petitioner with entitled relief as per the law. The Court clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the claims and left the decision on applicable Circulars to the competent authority.

6. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, highlighting the irrelevance of judgments cited regarding retrospective promotions and monitory benefits. The focus remained on the need for lawful actions and compliance with Circulars governing appointments.