Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jai Singh v. Union Of India Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Post & Others - WRIT - A No. 6978 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 11855 (20 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6978 of  2002

Jai Singh vs. Union of India and others.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.

(Delivered by R.K.Agrawal, J.)

The petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Packer in the Department of Post and Telegraph at Etah Post Office. He was placed at serial No.108 in the gradation list.  A departmental promotion committee, constituted for promotion to the post of Group 'D' category, held its meeting in the year 1995, considered and recommended various persons for promotion to the Group 'D' posts. The name of the petitioner did not find mention in the promotion list. However, the name of Rukampal Singh, who was at serial no.114 in the gradation list, was mentioned in the promotion list. The criteria for promotion was seniority subject to satisfactory work.  The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad by filing Original Application No.535 of 1995, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 3rd July, 1997. The Tribunal in paragraph 7 of its order has held as follows:

"7.      So far as the case of Jai Singh is concerned, it is not disputed that the applicant had furnished the certificate in support of the educational qualification as well as the date of birth. Gradation list which had been brought on record mentions both the requirements. We are unable to understand as to why the verification of the educational qualification and date of birth needed when both of them were entered in the service book where from the gradation list was prepared. If the service book is lost at Mainpuri, the applicant cannot be compelled to suffer for that reason. It is not the case of the respondents nor is any such plea taken or documents advanced that there is any doubt about the educational qualification and date of birth which were given by Jai Singh and entered in the service book. There is also no dispute that the gradation list which had been brought on record, was not prepared on the basis of the entries in the service book. What sanctity should be attached to such entries of the service book has not been made clear by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co.Ltd. And others v. Shri Deen Bandhu Majumdar and another J.T. 1995(4) S.C. 23. Their Lordships had held that the entries particularly the entry with respect to date of birth made in the service book the time of entry in service, should be deemed final. In the present case the verification of educational qualification and date of birth of this applicant Jai Singh is required. In our opinion, whatever was entered in the service book which is now stated to have been lost was definitely reflected in the gradation list. Thus the entries of gradation list should be deemed to have been made correctly from the service book and should be relied upon for considering the promotion of the applicant in Group 'D' cadre."

The Tribunal  did not give any direction regarding the date from which the petitioner should be promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee and, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application seeking review of its order dated 3rd July, 1997, which application has been rejected by the Tribunal by the order dated 21st November, 2001.

We have heard Sri A.B.Lall Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his and the Tribunal in its order dated 3rd July, 1997 had rightly held so.  He further submitted that the petitioner has been promoted in the year 1997 on the basis of the gradation list which existed even in the year 1995, when the Departmental Promotion Committee had met for the first time.  According to him, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 26th April, 1995, which was the date from which his juniors have been promoted.

Sri H.C. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd April, 1997, the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the case of the petitioner and recommended for promotion, which promotion has been granted for the year 1997 and he is not entitled for being promoted since 26th April, 1995 as original certificates have not been produced by him.

Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute that the service book and other record including original certificates filed by the petitioner have been misplaced by the department of Post & Telegraph, Mainpuri, when those were sent for verification.  In the absence of original certificates, which have been misplaced not by the petitioner but by the Department itself, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is also to be noted that the Departmental Promotion Committee had promoted the petitioner on the basis of the entries made against petitioner in the gradation list taking it to be correct.  If that is the position, then the petitioner ought to have been promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted i.e. 26th April, 1995.  

In this view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent no.2 to give effect to the promotion order of the petitioner from 26th April, 1995, the date when his juniors were admittedly promoted.  The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.  The respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate orders within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.