Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 204 (PAT)

Bhuwaneshwar Pd. Singh v. State of Bihar

1989-05-23

B.N.AGRAWAL, S.B.SANYAL

body1989
Order The Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department is directed to be added as a party-respondents to this petition. 2. This writ petition has a very sad history. The case shows how ineffective is the State Administrative Tribunal in absence of any power to get their order implemented in full. Orders/directions passed by the State Administrative Tribunal are not carried out resulting in turning the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as an executing court for the implementation of the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. 3. In Service Case No. 285/86 filed by the petitioner claiming his promotion from the year 1969 was disposed of On 8-4-1987 On the averment and on the basis of the counter-affidavit of the Commissioner and the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Technical Secretariat, Patna and the Commissioner and the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Irrigation Department stating that the petitioner has been given seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from 26.2.1969, vide office order no. 69, dated 31.3.87 In the said office order, it was also said that the petitioner will not get any pecuniary benefit for the period between 26.2.1969 to 31.3.1987. On the said assertion, the petitioner withdrew the case from the tribunal and the petitioner was given leave to pursue his grievance for consequential benefits which was not allowed by the said office order. 4. It appears that the petitioner filed representation for consequential benefits as per the leave granted by the Tribunal. Being annoyed with the said representation, office order Annexure-8 itself was withdrawn. This prompted the petitioner to file another application before the Tribunal bearing Service Case No. 397 of 1987. 5. The Tribunal by its order dated 31.8.1988 allowed the promotion from the year 1969, as indicated by the office order dated 31.3.1987 and further directed that the petitioner shall be paid all consequential benefits of seniority. 6. On 21.4.89 when the matter was listed for admission, the State counsel prayed for two month's time to assail the decision rendered by the Tribunal before the High Court, since the instant writ petition is for implementation of the direction given by the Tribunal on 31st of August, 1988. 6. On 21.4.89 when the matter was listed for admission, the State counsel prayed for two month's time to assail the decision rendered by the Tribunal before the High Court, since the instant writ petition is for implementation of the direction given by the Tribunal on 31st of August, 1988. We expressed our concern in the said order that after passage of eight months from the rendering of the order by the Tribunal, the State intends to file a writ petition against the decision of the Tribunal but, at the same time, the Court allowed three weeks' time by way of last chance to implement the order and/or to produce stay order. 7. Today, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that they do not intend to move the High Court against the order of the Tribunal. It is said that the Government is consulting the Finance Department for implementation of the direction of the Tribunal. 8. It is true that the State Administrative Tribunal is not possessed of power to get their order implemented but the writ court possesses enough power to punish the guilty and/ or to censor such officers who arc required to obey the order of the superior but refuses to do so or ignore it deliberately. The attitude of the Subordinate authorities with respect to orders and directions of the superiors whose orders are meant to be obeyed if not obeyed, leads to judicial anarchy. We are surprised to note that even today, the authorities are consulting each other for implementing the order of the State Administrative Tribunal instead of informing the Court that the order has been implemented. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to implement the order of the State Administrative Tribunal forthwith and under no circumstances beyond one month from today. 10. The writ petition is allowed with costs hearing fee Rs. 2000/- (Rs. two thousand).