AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By filing this Special Appeal, the appellant being the writ-petitioner in WP(S/S) No.1194 of 2013 has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.04.2017 allowing his application and giving direction to the respondents to absorb him in HILTRON. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by the non-grant of relief no.1 to the writ-petition, who is in fact seeks a writ of certiorari quashing clause no.3 of the order dated 15.07.2013 and letter dated 23.07.2013, which is Annexure-14 to the writ-petition.
By virtue of this clause and letter, the petitioner was to become junior to other employees who had joined in the HILTRON before his absorption.
It is born out from the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that, in the meantime, in the month of November 2021, the petitioner has retired from his service on superannuation. Thus, this issue of seniority has no meaning now.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that if he is declared senior to other employees then he will get more increments and his pension and gratuity will increase.
We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant as increment is granted on the basis of qualifying service of one year. Pension and gratuity depends on the last pay drawn by the employee and the length of service. Seniority has nothing to do with increment, pension and gratuity.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to allow this special appeal and hold that this appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.