Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 668 (PAT)

Rama Kant Singh v. State of Bihar

1995-12-06

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1995
Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26th December, 1994, as contained in Annexure-6. By the said order, the seniority of the petitioner to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police has been fixed with effect from 8th of September, 1971 instead of 4th November, 1970. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 1st April, 1995, as contained in Annexure-7, by which the petitioner has been granted promotion to the higher post of Inspector of police with effect from 4th May, 1990. Prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to shift back the date of promotion to the said higher post of Inspector of Police to that of July, 1981 i.e. from the date the persons who were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police after 4th November, 1970, were so promoted. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as a literate Constable in the year 1956. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 8th September, 1966. The petitioner was granted officiating promotion to the higher post of Sub Inspector of police on 4th November, 1970. No separate regular promotion order was issued to the post of Sub-Inspector of police, but the petitioner was confirmed to the said post of Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 1st September 80. 3. Today, the counsel for the State submitted that in the year 1981, the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of inspector of Police, but subsequently, the petitioner was sent back to his substantive post of Sub Inspector of Police, Subsequently, in the year 1986, the petitioner was again asked to officiate against the higher post of Inspector of police, but again taken back to the lower substantive post of Sub Inspector of police. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that a number of persons who were promoted as Sub Inspector of police on officiating basis, after 3rd November, 1970, including one Balram Dubey, in his case, on the basis of a decision of this Court given in C.W.J.C. No. 7713/89, the seniority was granted to said Balram Dubey with effect from 24th November, 1970 (the date of officiating promotion) to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. On the said basis, the said Balram Dubey has been given promotion to the higher post of Inspector of Police with effect from July, 1981. It is alleged that the petitioner having not been granted such benefit had also to move before this Court by filing a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 10903/92.) A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 2nd November, 1992 (Annexure-3) disposed of the said writ petition in favour of the petitioner, directing the authorities to count the seniority of the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, after counting the period of officiating promotion. It is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid direction of this Court, though the seniority of the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police should have been counted with effect from 4th November, 1970, the date on which the petitioner was granted officiating promotion to the said post, but instead of that the Respondents have counted the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 8th September, 1971, by impugned order, as contained in Annexure-6. 5. The counsel for the petitioner states that against the aforesaid decision of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10903/92, the Respondents moved before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave petition which was also dismissed by Supreme Court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that treating the date of promotion of petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police as 8th September, 1971, the Respondents have illegally considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of police and have granted promotion with effect from 4th May, 1990. According to the counsel for the petitioner, if the Respondents would have considered the case of the petitioner for seniority to the post of Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 4th November, 1970, in that case, the petitioner would have been entitled for promotion to the higher post of Inspector of Police with effect from July, 1981, and not with effect from 4th May, 1990. It is for the said reason, the promotion order, as contained in Annexure-7, has been challenged by the petitioner and prayer has been made to shift back the date of promotion of petitioner to the post of Inspector of Police to that of July, 1981. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. It is for the said reason, the promotion order, as contained in Annexure-7, has been challenged by the petitioner and prayer has been made to shift back the date of promotion of petitioner to the post of Inspector of Police to that of July, 1981. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The counsel for the State submits that in terms of Rule 659-A of Bihar Police Manual, a person is entitled for promotion to the higher post of Sub-Inspector of Police, on completion of 5 years period, as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the petitioner having been promoted as Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police on 8th of September, 1966, the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the higher post of Sub-Inspector of police prior to 8th September, 1971, It is for the said reason, the Respondents granted seniority in favour of the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of police with effect from 8th September, 1971 and not with effect from 4th November, 1970. 7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 659-A of Bihar Police Manual has been inserted in the year 1978, whereas the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, as back as on 4th November, 1970 i.e. eight years prior to insertion of such rule. It is submitted that the aforesaid Rule 659-A of Bihar Police Manual, 1978 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 8. Having heard the parties, according to me, the seniority is dependent on the date of entry of a person to the particular cadre. The petitioner having been appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Police on 4th November, 1970, such date of appointment cannot be notionally shifted forward to 8th September, 1971. Even if the petitioner was illegally promoted at that point of time, on such ground the Respondents cannot deny the benefit of seniority in favour of the petitioner. Apart from the same, it is evident and clear that Rule 659-A of Bihar Police Manual, 1978 was not even in existence as on 4th November, 1970, and it is for the said reason, I am not inclined to accept the submission, as made by the counsel for the State. 9. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 26th December 94 (Annexure-6). 9. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 26th December 94 (Annexure-6). The Respondents are directed to provide the petitioner with the seniority in the rank of sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 4th November, 1970 i.e. the date the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis to the said post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Respondents are also directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of Police with effect from July, 1981, taking into account the date of Promotion of petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police as 4th November, 1970, and further taking into account that the persons promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police after 4th November, 1970, they have already been granted promotion to the higher post of Inspector of Police with effect from July, 1981. 10. The Respondents, on consideration of case of petitioner for such promotion, if found fit, the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Police be shifted back to that of July, 1981 and, in that case, the Respondents should also grant consequential benefit in favour of the petitioner including the seniority to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from July, 1981 and arrears at salary thereto. 11. The afore said order is to be complied by the Respondents within the period of four months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. Application allowed with direction.