AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to modify the Government Order No. 27-TR of 2019 dated 29.03.2019 to the extent it reinstates the petitioner as Joint Managing Director of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') instead of Managing Director, the post on which he was working earlier.
The petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the petitioner had been working as Managing Director of the Corporation from 2010-2015, before he was prematurely retired vide Government Order dated June 30, 2015. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing SWP No. 2154/2015. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 10.03.2017. The appeal filed by the State against the same bearing LPASW No. 167/2017 was dismissed on 06.02.2018. Even after the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was not reinstated back. He had to file CPSW No.274/2017. Thereafter, the order passed by this Court was complied with when the Government passed an order dated 29.03.2019 reinstating the petitioner subject to decision in the Special Leave Petition filed. It was submitted that the Special Leave Petition is still pending with the Registry of Hon'ble the Supreme Court with objections. As vide aforesaid order, the petitioner has been reinstated back as Joint Managing Director, the prayer is that he should be reinstated as Managing Director, the post on which he was working prior to his premature retirement.
To support his arguments, the petitioner referred to Agenda Item No. 71.11 of the Meeting of the Board of the Corporation held on 17.07.2014. To submit that pay and allowances for the post of Managing Director were paid to the petitioner and his officiating appointment was also approved by the Government. Hence, he need to be reinstated back at the same status, may not be in the Corporation but in any other department of the Government.
After hearing the petitioner in person, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. No doubt before his premature retirement, the petitioner was discharging his duties as the Managing Director of the Corporation. The petitioner who was substantively working as Joint Managing Director of the Corporation was given additional charge of the post of Managing Director of the Corporation vide order dated 31.05.2010. In the 71st Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 17.07.2014, it was decided to release pay scale of the Managing Director to the petitioner, who was officiating as the Managing Director. It was in the light of the fact that the power to appoint Managing Director lies with the Government. The petitioner wanted to take benefit of this to claim that the Corporation having disbursed the petitioner pay and allowances for the post of Managing Director, he should be treated as regularly promoted as Managing Director of the Corporation and should be reinstated as such. However, the argument is totally misconceived. Substantively, the petitioner was Joint Managing Director. He was only given the additional charge of the Managing Director on the retirement of the then Managing Director. However, he continued. It was in the result of his discharging the duties of the Managing Director that decision was taken to grant him pay and allowances for that post.
Even in the order vide which the petitioner was prematurely retired on June 30, 2015, his designation was mentioned as Joint Managing Director, the substantive post on which he was working.
Keeping in view the afore stated facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Managing Director and not the post on which he has already been reinstated, i.e. the Joint Managing Director.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.