2004 (2) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he should have been appointed on the said post of dispatch clerk with effect from 8.7.1986. On 3.9.1997, during the pendency of this writ petition, on his purported representation, he was appointed on the post of dispatch clerk, with effect from 1.8.1986, without monitory benefits, vide Annexure-A, to the counter affidavit. Though this order dated 3.9.1997, not granting monitory benefits, has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition but his learned counsel submitted that petitioner is entitled to the monitory benefits also with effect from 1.8.1986. 3. From the materials placed before this Court, it is not clear whether the said orders dated 8.7.1986 (Annexure-C), 21.7.1995 (Annexure-9) and 3.9.1997 (Annexure-A) are le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Engineer to take final decision in the matter in terms of the said directions of the Chief Engineer dated 12.5.1992. This Court never said that the Superintending Engineer should act against the law. In order dated 21.7.1995, the Superintending Engineer found that there has been serious illegalities in promotion/appointments of the employees on the post of clerks, but as it was difficult to rectify it, he desperately appointed the petitioner provisionally on the vacant post of Despatch Clerk with effect from 1.8.1995. He forgot that if illegality was committed in cases of other employees, it was a matter for initiating actions against them and the erring officers, but that could not be a basis for perpetuating the illegality. Furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petent officer enquire into the entire matter afresh and pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law. He will examine whether the orders passed by the Superintending Engineer from time to time on 8.7.1986, 21.7.1995 and 3.9.1997 have been passed correctly in accordance with law or not. He will also examine whether the claim of the petitioner that he should be appointed/regularized with effect from 1.8.1986 on the post of Despatch Clerk with all monitory benefits, is tenable or not. It goes without saying that to whatever claim/relief, the petitioner is found entitled as per the law, should be given to him. The Secretary will also initiate an enquiry to find out whether one or other employee has been illegal....