Manipur High Court
Md. Abdul Sattar vs State Of Manipur on 19 December, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (C) No. 554 of 2021
Md. Abdul Sattar ....Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Manipur ...Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
19.12.2024
Heard Mr.Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the State.
The petitioner, who is a Section Officer, Grade-I in the RD & PR,
Government of Manipur, made a representation for promotion to the next
higher post. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide
impugned order dated 17.08.2020, on the ground that there is no promotional
post in the RD & PR and post in the RED Cell in the RD & PR is a different
section. The petitioner, who is working under RD & PR cannot be adjusted for
promotion in the RED Wing. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner
approached this Court, inter alia, praying for setting aside the impugned order
dated 17.8.2020, with a prayer for directing the respondents to consider his
absorption or promotion to Assistant Engineer or equivalent post in the RED
or by creating any suitable post. The prayer is reproduced hereunder:
"i. .... .. .. .. .. ..
ii. issue writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/
order/ direction by quashing/setting aside the impugned
order dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure-A/15) as the same is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
iii. issue writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ/order/direction to the respondents/authorities
concerned by directing them to absorb/promote the
petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer/equivalent
and thereafter to Executive Engineer/ equivalent of the
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj,
Govt of Manipur or the newly established Rural Road
Engineering Department, Govt of Manipur against the
available vacancies and/or by creating suitable posts to
accommodate them.
iv .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ”
2
Mr.Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner relies
on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment reported in 1990 (Supp.1) SCC
688: O.Z.Hussain Vs Union of India wherein direction was issued for
framing appropriate rules for making promotional avenue. Learned counsel
also relies on the judgment in the case of Raj Pal Vs State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors reported in 2010 SCC online HP 1095 where similar
direction was issued to frame scheme providing promotional avenue. It is also
pointed out that vide order 14.6.2022 issued by the Commissioner, RD & PR,
Government of Manipur Section Officer Grade-I from RD & PR was utilized as
A.E., in-charge in the RED. It is stated that appropriate order may be passed
in terms of the decision of the Court and subsequent order dated 14.6.2022.
Mr.Shyam Sharma, learned GA submits that the prayer of the
petitioner cannot be considered as there is no promotional avenue in the RD
& PR and RED in the RD & PR are separate wing in the same department and
staff cannot be interchanged except for utilization on deputation.
Learned GA also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65: State of Tripura & Ors Vs K.K.Roy,
as the petitioner should not have any grievance regarding non availability of
promotional avenue as he was aware of the situation prior to joining service
and the petitioner also availed ACP Scheme I and II for the same purpose.
This Court is of the opinion that the writ petition may be disposed
of by directing the State respondents to consider the case of creating
promotional avenue for the petitioner, if feasible and also consider his case for
utilization in the RED Wing of the RD & PR as has been done in the case of
other similarly situated person.
With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
The whole exercise may be completed within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
JUDGE
Priyojit
WPC 554 OF 2021 (ORAL) 2
Digitally signed
RAJKUMA by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2024.12.21
SINGH 11:40:07 +05'30'