AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved of Office Order No.DSS/Adm/66 dated 19.09.2018, whereby the petitioner, who is substantively holding the post of Assistant Store Keeper, has been transferred from Sub-Stationery Depot, Kathua and posted in Sub-Stationary Depot, Rajouri.
The grievance, as projected by the petitioner in this petition, is that he is holding the substantive post of Assistant Store Keeper and being a senior most Assistant Store Keeper is entitled to be promoted as Store Keeper Grade-II. It is further submitted that keeping in view his seniority, the respondent No.2 vide order No.DSS/21 of 2016 dated 29.06.2016 directed the petitioner to hold the charge of store keeper Grade-II in his own pay and grade without the benefit of charge allowance.
The petitioner further submits that the aforesaid order was complied with by him and he joined as Store Keeper Grade-II in Kathua. It is further submitted that the petitioner raised the grievance against the aforesaid order and requested the respondents to pay him charge allowance for officiating against the higher post. It is submitted that instead of acceding to the request of the petitioner, the respondents transferred him to Sub-Stationery Depot, Rajouri. The order impugned is also challenged on the ground that the same suffers from total non-application of mind, in as much as there is no post of Assistant Store Keeper available in Sub-Stationery Depot, Rajouri.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Assistant Store Keeper and is to be considered for promotion in view of his seniority and eligibility as and when the DPC meets and a decision to make promotions to the post of Store Keeper Grade-II is taken by the respondents. It is equally true that the petitioner cannot be asked to hold the post of Store Keeper Grade-II and perform its plenary duties, unless he is compensated by payment of charge allowance. Having said so, it may e pointed out that the petitioner accepted the order dated 29.06.2016 and joined as Store Keeper Grade-II in his own pay and grade. It is the further contention of the petitioner that immediately after joining as Store Keeper Grade-II he made a request to the respondents for release of charge allowance, though, no such representation has been placed on record.
Be that as it may, the petitioner who is substantively holding the post of Assistant Store Keeper cannot claim, as a matter of right, to be posted as Store Keeper grade-II substantively or temporarily and subject to payment of charge allowance. However, if contention of the petitioner that he has been posted as Assistant Store Keeper in Sub-Stationery Depot, Rajouri against the post of Store Keeper Grade-II is correct, then remedial measures are required to be taken by the respondents.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I do not find any substance in this writ petition insofar as posting of the petitioner is concerned. However, it is provided that in case there is no post of Assistant Store Keeper in Sub-Stationery Depot, Rajouri and the petitioner has been posted as Assistant Store Keeper against the post of Store Keeper Grade-II, then respondent No.2 shall re-consider the order of transfer and posting of the petitioner and pass appropriate order, so as to post the petitioner against a substantive vacant post of Assistant Store Keeper only. It is, however, open to the respondents to post the petitioner against the post of Store Keeper grade-II but this shall be subject to payment of charge allowance, as admissible under CSR.