| HC restores SFC employee’s promotion, orders release of withheld salary | | Big Relief After 32 Years | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 30: In a significant service matter, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed two orders of the J&K State Forest Corporation whereby the promotion of an employee to the post of Assistant Supervisor was withdrawn and his salary for nearly three years was withheld, holding that the action of the Corporation was unsustainable in law.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar in SWP No. 491/2009, Mohd Taj vs J&K State Forest Corporation and others. The petitioner was represented by Mr. S.H. Rather, Advocate, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Vishal Bharti, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Vivek Mattoo, Advocate.
The petitioner had challenged SFC Order No. 72 of 2000 dated 13.06.2000, under which he was denied salary in the grade of Supervisor-II for the period from January 1994 to December 1996, and SFC Order No. 379 of 2008 dated 15.10.2008, whereby his promotion granted vide order dated 30.04.1993 was withdrawn.
As per the case record, Mohd Taj was appointed as Field Assistant in 1981 and was promoted as Assistant Supervisor on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Later, allegations surfaced that he had secured the promotion on the basis of a fake matriculation certificate, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 RPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Rajouri, on 14.11.1995.
While examining the matter, the High Court noted that the petitioner’s promotion had been granted prior to the coming into force of the J&K State Forest Corporation Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1993, which became effective only from 06.01.1994. The Court observed that before these Regulations came into effect, there were no rules governing service conditions of Corporation employees that made matriculation an essential qualification for promotion to the post in question.
The Court also noted that even the material relied upon by the Corporation indicated that matriculation had not been treated as a mandatory qualification at the relevant time and that another under-matric employee had also been promoted as Assistant Supervisor. It held that the Corporation had failed to produce any executive instruction or circular showing that only matriculate Field Assistants were eligible for promotion before the 1993 Regulations came into force.
Holding the impugned orders to be legally unsustainable, the Court quashed both the orders and directed the respondents to release the petitioner’s withheld salary for the period from January 1994 to December 1996 in the grade of Assistant Supervisor (Supervisor-II) and to continue to pay him salary in the said pay scale along with all consequential benefits. (JNF) |
|
