High CourtsSingle Bench(1998) 07 J&K CK 0060

Subash Singh and Others vs J & K State Road Transport Corporation and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 20 July 1998 · Citation: (1999) 2 SriLJ 552

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.C.Gandhi, J
CASE NUMBER
S.W.P. No. 903/95

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 747 words
1.

Petitioner by means of this petition seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to confirm them as drivers with effect

from 22101988 and to grant the benefit of arrears of salary in the payscale of Rs. 12002140. They further seek the determination of their seniority

after treating them as drivers with effect from 22101988.

2.

The petitioners while working as cleaners, have been promoted temporarily as drivers under order No: JKSRTC/EC1/3211 dated 221,01993,

issued by the Executive Director, SRTC, in the payscale of Rs. 8101750 plus COLA as admissible under the Corporation Rules, with the

stipulation that their regularisation in the payscale of drivers will be considered after they get their driving licences converted into hill licences. The

petitioners have not been promoted by the respondents as they are not possessed of the hill licences. It is also averred in the petition that the State

Transport authorities have lifted the condition of possessing hill licence and the stipulation contained in the order dated 22101993 for consideration

of the petitioners for promotion to the post of driver after they produce hill licence, is arbitrary and against law. Learned counsel has also produced

in the court photostat copy of the certificate, issued by the Registering and Licencing Authority created under the new Motor Vehicles Act and the

Rules framed thereunder in 1992, there is no mention of driving licence to be issued for hill or plain routes and the driving licences issued after the

enforcement of the new Act and the Rules, are valid throughout the country and that the licences issued before the enforcement of the new Act and

the Rules, also fall in the same category.

3.

Respondents have filed objections stating therein that as per Rules, it is prerequisite condition for every driver to possess a valid driving licence

of hilly area and because of the fact at the relevant time of temporary promotion of the petitioners since they were only having licences for plain

routes, therefore, they could not be considered for promotion. However, the regularisation/promotion of the petitioners is subject to the availability

of vacancies and the seniority, merit and fitness. It is further stated that it is nowhere stated by the petitioner that from which date the condition of

hill licence has been withdrawn. Therefore, they are not entitled to be promoted.

4.

The petition is admitted to hearing and taken up for disposal at the joint request of learned counsel for the parties at this stage as pleadings are

complete.

5.

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

6.

It is not denied by Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the respondents that after the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the

Rules framed thereunder in 1992, there is no provision for issuance of the licences by the Registering and Licencing Authority for plain/ hilly area.

The certificate issued by the said Authority referred to above has also not been disputed by Mr. Nanda. The petitioners are, no doubt, entitled to

seek consideration for the post of driver as they have been working as such being placed in the payscale of Rs. 8101750 under order dated

22101993 from which date petitioners are seeking their promotion and regularisation. Once it is established that under the new Act and the Rules

framed, there is no provision for issuance of the hill licence, the respondents cannot place such a stipulation rendering the petitioners ineligible

seeking consideration for promotion. The condition imposed is found arbitrary and not based on any provision of law or the rules meant for the

purpose.

7.

However, the submission of Mr. Nanda that the petitioners shall be considered for promotion according to the merit, seniority suitability and

subject to availability of posts has force as promotion of the petitioners can only be against the vacancies.

8.

The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of driver, without

insisting upon the production of hill driving licence, according to their seniority, merit and suitability, provided the vacancies are available for*

promotion. In case the vacancies are available as on the date of promotion of the petitioners under order dated 22101993, they, if found fit and

cleared by the DPC for promotion, shall be given benefit of promotion in the payscale of driver from the date of said order, by the respondents.

9.

No order as to costs.