AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Before we proceed further in the matter, the order which was recorded on 07. 2.2017 needs to be reproduced which is hereunder: " The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that the appellant was appointed as MCS Grade-II on ad hoc basis on 04.12.1990. Later on, his services were regularised on the said post of MCS Grade-II on 19.03.1996. In terms of the Rule stipulating therein that one is eligible to be promoted to MCS Grade-I only on completion of six years of regular service in MCS Grade-II, the appellant was given promotion to MCS Grade-I on 03.08.2000 taking into account even the period of ad hoc service as regular service as had that period of ad hoc service been not taken as regular service, the appellant could have been promoted only in the year 2002. In such event, the appellant completed 13 years of service in the year 2003. When the petitioner-appellant completed 5 years in Grade-II he became eligible to be promoted to Junior Administrative Grade in the year 2005. In spite of fulfilling the eligibility for being promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Grade when the appellant was not promoted to the said post, he approached to this Court for a direction to the authority to consider the case of promotion of the appellant by taking a plea that his 13 years of service should be taken into account from 04.12.1990 when the petitioner had been appointed on MCS Grade-II on ad hoc basis as subsequently, it had been treated to be a regular service but the Court did not accept the plea of the petitionerappellant rather passed an order to the effect that 13 years of service would be taken into account only from 19.03.1996. That order is being assailed on the ground that once the period of ad hoc service was taken into account as regular service for giving promotion from MCS Grade-II to Grade-I the authority now cannot be allowed to take a plea that period of ad hoc service cannot be taken to be period of regular service but the learned Single Judge failed to take into account this aspect of the matter in right perspective. However, it was placed before us that during pendency of this application, the appellant got retired in the year 2013 but before he got retired he was given promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade but presently it is not known as to when the appellant had been given promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade and therefore, the case be adjourned to other date so that said fact to be brought on record.
Matter be posted on 09.02.2017."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order the notification dated 30.11.2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur was placed before us for showing that the appellant was promoted to the post of MCS(JAG) with effect from 20.11.2008. The said copy of the order be kept on record. By referring to the said order, Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the period of ad hoc service of the appellant was taken to be the period of regular service while granting promotion from the post of MCS Grade-II to MCs Grade-I, the said period should also be counted as regular service in the matter of promotion to the post of MCS(JAG) and thereby if that could have been taken into account then the appellant should have been promoted to the post of MCS(JAG) with effect from 03.08.2005 whereas the promotion has been given with effect from 20.11.2008 and there also benefits of two months of ad hoc service has been given and thereby the State respondents now cannot take the plea that for the purpose of granting promotion either to the post of MCS Grade-I or to MCS (JAG) only, the period of regular service would be counted.
Thus, it was submitted that under the circumstances, the respondents be directed to give all the retiral benefits to the appellant reckoning the date of promotion to the post of MCS (JAG) as 03.08.2005.
As against this, Mr. R.s. Reisang, learned senior G.A appearing for the State submits that it is true that the appellant was given promotion to the post of MCS Grade-I from the post of MCS (JAG) in the year 2000 though his case of promotion should have been considered in the year 2002 as taking into account the period of regular service with effect from 19.03.1996, the appellant would have completed six years only in the year 2002 but the writ petitioner was wrongly given promotion and for wrong action on the part of some of the authority, the appellant cannot be allowed to reap the benefits of it. Further, it was submitted that taking into account the aforesaid facts the appellant became eligible to be promoted to the post of MCS (JAG) with effect from 01.01.2009 and that the appellant got retired in the year 2013 and in that event, the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evidently clear that when the appellant was given promotion from the post of MCS Grade-II to the post of MCS Grade-I, the period of ad hoc service was taken into account. That benefit given to the appellant, according to the learned counsel appearing for the State, is by mistake. If that was on account of mistake the authorities should have withdrawn the order under which the appellant had been given benefit but admittedly the said order of promotion to the post of MCS (JAG) had never been withdrawn. In such event, the appellant would be entitled to have have calculation for the period for13 years with effect from 19.03.1996 and if it is taken into account the appellant would be eligible for promotion to the post MCS(JAG) with effect from 03.08.2005 but the promotion under notification dated 30.11.2009 has been given with effect from 20.11.2008.
Under the circumstances, the appellant''s promotion be considered to be with effect from 03.08.2005 only for the purpose of having pensionary benefits not for any other purpose. The order be carried out by the State within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of.