Brijesh Kumar Raikwar vs Union Of India And Ors

Sl.No.,F/No.Rank & Bank,FSS No.,"Medical

Category with

date","Coy to which

posted

XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX

2,"045021076

SI/GD Brijesh

Kumar Raikwar",221,"Shape-I

19/06/2015",D/SDG

XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX

enclosed or brought to our notice in the course of arguments to substantiate the existence of any such rule. In any event, even if the said rule is in",,,,

existence, then the same appears to be most illogical. Instead of following the principle of inter se seniority between Inspectors/GD at the SDG, the",,,,

respondents have elected to follow a strange procedure wherein, priority for retention in the SDG and entitlement to SDA, is sought to be linked with",,,,

the remaining tenure of the person in the Group.Â,,,,

On perusing the stand taken by the respondents, we find that the same to be untenable and arbitrary. It is not as if the petitioner had sought a",,,,

posting in the SDG. Rather, it was the respondents who had posted him in the said Group, knowing very well that vide Signal dated 02.12.2015, on",,,,

being promoted as an Inspector/GD, he had been allotted J&K Zone. It is also not a case where the respondents were unaware of the strength of the",,,,

SDG, when posting the petitioner to the Group vide order dated 29.12.2015. That being the position, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to",,,,

contend that the petitioner, though posted in the SDG, would not be entitled to SDA. It is also noteworthy that at no stage did the respondents clarify to",,,,

the petitioner while issuing the office order dated 29.12.2015, that he would not be entitled to SDA on the logic sought to be offered now in the counter",,,,

affidavit to the effect that since his remaining tenure in the SDG was the shortest amongst the other five officers, whose names find mention in the",,,,

office order dated 29.12.2015, he would not be entitled to receive SDA, even while posted in the SDG. Â",,,,

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.03.2016 issued by the respondents (Annexure P-5) insofar as it",,,,

relates to the petitioner, whose name finds mention at Sr.No.10 in Part-II of the said order, is held to be unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and",,,,

set aside. Similarly, the replies dated 08.07.2016 and 20.10.2016 issued by the respondents, declining to grant SDA to the petitioner, while he was",,,,

posted in the SDG, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the SDA in favour of the petitioner for the period of his posting",,,,

in the SDG from 29.12.2015 to 19.11.2016, in the rank of Inspector/GD to which post he stood promoted vide order dated 27.11.2015. Compliances",,,,

shall be made within four weeks from today, by remitting the amounts payable to the petitioner directly into his account. Â",,,,

The petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms with costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the respondents, to be remitted into the account of the",,,,

petitioner alongwith the arrears of the SDA, within the same timeline. Â",,,,