Kamal Singh vs Savitri Bai

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following relief: ???(i) This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. Date of initial application i.e. 14.11.1990 or from the date of judgment and decree of Pratapgarh Court i.e. 4.10.1993 with all consequential benefits with other benefits upgradation etc.

ii. And be pleased to issue any other writ/order/direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.???

Petitioner''s father died in harness on 06.09.1990. The petitioner preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 14.11.1990. Thereafter, admittedly, there was a dispute between petitioner and other persons which was decided pursuant to an application preferred under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act. Copy of the said judgment dated 30.09.19996 is Annexure-P/5. The petitioner again preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Lastly by order dated 04.09.1999 (AnnexureP/8), compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner.

Shri Anil Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that after the death of petitioner''s father, he promptly preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment. No other person preferred any such application. Hence respondents should have granted compassionate appointment expeditiously. He placed reliance on the circular Annexure-P/11 and P/12 in this regard. Since the delay in issuing the appointment order is attributable to the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to get seniority from 14.11.1990 or from the date of judgment and decree dated 04.10.1993.

Shri B.D. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer. He submits that an employee can claim seniority for the services rendered by him. The petitioner is claiming seniority from the date when he was not even appointed. The petitioner even did not challenge the seniority list (Annexure-P/14).

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

In the relief clause, the petitioner has not prayed for any specific relief that his appointment should be ante dated or, in other words, should be given retrospective effect. Thus, the petitioner who was admittedly appointed on 04.09.1999 cannot claim seniority from the date when he was not on the rolls of the department. This is trite law that an employee gets seniority from the date he becomes member of the service in accordance with law. He cannot claim seniority for a period when he was not even member of the service. The petitioner has not challenged the seniority list (Annexure-P/14). He accepted the appointment order in the year 1999 without any objection/demur. He, for the first time, sent a legal notice on 17.08.2015. This legal notice was sent after 16 years from the date of appointment of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim seniority from the date of submission of his application for grant of compassionate appointment.

I find no reason to entertain this petition in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.