Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Superintending Agriculture Officer, Amravati Division, challenging the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 of the Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No.79 of 1991. The Industrial Court had directed the promotion of the respondent, Ramdas Sampatrao Puri, from the post of Peon to the post of Driver with effect from 11.07.1986, granting affirmative relief. The respondent had been working as a Peon since 1966 and, over a period of 20 years, intermittently drove government jeeps when the regular driver was absent, as instructed by his superior officers. He was paid special pay @20% for driving in addition to his peon salary. The petitioner argued that the promotion to Driver was governed by the Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980, specifically Rule 2(a) read with (c)(iv), which required 'not less than three years experience of driving the motor vehicle other than motorcycle'. The petitioner contended that the respondent did not possess three years of continuous driving experience, as his driving was intermittent and for short periods each year. The respondent, through his counsel, supported the Industrial Court's interpretation that the cumulative driving work over 20 years satisfied the experience requirement. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no error in the Industrial Court's reasoning and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of promotion.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Experience Requirement - Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980, Rule 2(a) read with (c)(iv) - The issue was whether intermittent driving experience over 20 years could be counted as three years' experience for promotion from Peon to Driver. The Industrial Court held that the cumulative intermittent driving work performed over 20 years satisfied the three-year experience requirement. The High Court upheld this interpretation, finding no fault with the Industrial Court's reasoning. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent-complainant, a Peon who intermittently drove government vehicles over 20 years, satisfied the requirement of 'not less than three years experience of driving the motor vehicle' under the Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980, for promotion to the post of Driver.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 of the Industrial Court, Amravati, directing promotion of respondent from Peon to Driver w.e.f. 11.07.1986, is upheld.
Law Points
- Promotion
- Experience requirement
- Intermittent service
- Industrial Court
- Affirmative relief
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 145
Writ Petition No.3564 of 2003
Ms S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for Petitioner; Mr. S.D. Harode, Advocate for Respondent
Superintending Agriculture Officer, Amravati Division, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court's order directing promotion of respondent from Peon to Driver.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Industrial Court's judgment and order dated 11.07.2003.
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by Industrial Court's order granting promotion to respondent despite alleged lack of three years driving experience.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No.79 of 1991, ordered promotion of respondent from Peon to Driver w.e.f. 11.07.1986.
Issues
Whether the respondent's intermittent driving experience over 20 years satisfies the requirement of 'not less than three years experience' under the Recruitment Rules.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that promotion to Driver is governed by Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980, requiring three years driving experience, which respondent lacked as his driving was intermittent and for short periods.
Respondent argued that Industrial Court correctly interpreted that cumulative driving work over 20 years satisfied the three-year experience requirement.
Ratio Decidendi
Intermittent driving experience over a long period can be aggregated to satisfy the requirement of 'not less than three years experience' under the Recruitment Rules, as the Industrial Court's interpretation was reasonable and no fault could be found with it.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Amravati in Complaint ULP No.79 of 1991 ordering promotion of the respondent from the post of Peon to the post of Driver w.e.f. 11.07.1986 by an affirmative relief, the State of Maharashtra preferred this writ petition against the said judgment and order.
That is the only point canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in support of the writ petition.
Per contra, Mr.Harode, learned counsel for the respondent employee supported the impugned judgment and order and invited my attention to the oral evidence of the respondentcomplainant, so also some documents about which there is a reference in the evidence of the respondent complainant.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Complaint ULP No.79 of 1991 before the Industrial Court, Amravati, seeking promotion. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 11.07.2003, directing promotion w.e.f. 11.07.1986. The petitioner, Superintending Agriculture Officer, filed Writ Petition No.3564 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.09.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980: Rule 2(a), Rule 2(c)(iv)
