Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1076 (PAT)

Rameshwar Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2000-09-05

AFTAB ALAM, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2000
Judgment 1. The persistent efforts made by the petitioner for the redressal of his fancied grievance(s) is now becoming trying for this Court. The dispute relates to seniority and it dates back to the year 1978 when the petitioner went from a Government Department to the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (The P.I.A.D.A. for short) in an officiating position. It is the petitioners notion that opp. party no.5 who was an employee of the P.I.A.D.A. was given promotion ahead of him disregarding his correct seniority position. In order to get what he considers to be his right, the petitioner has filed so many petitions in this court that it would be difficult to keep a count. In the synopsis of the case given at the beginning of this review petition, reference is made to four writ petitions, one contempt petition, one civil review and one letters patent appeal. Thus, the petitioner on his own showing has moved this court seven times, not counting the review petition in hand. 2. We find that after superannuation from his service, the petitioner has come to join the bar of this court and this perhaps comes in handy to him in filing repeated petitions in this court relating to the same grievance. We are, however, far from amused and we unequivocally deprecate this practice. 3. The last round of litigation leading to the civil review in hand commenced with the filing of CWJC No. 10141 of 1994. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought to challenge the seniority list, dated 23.9.1987 in which respondent no.5 was shown senior to him. Also coming under challenge in that writ petition was certain order passed by the Bureau of Public Enterprises on the representation filed by the petitioner on the dispute relating to his seniority position. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this court by order, dated 3.8.1995. In that order it was noted that the petitioner who had come to the P.I.A.D.A. on deputation was permanently absorbed there only on 19.8.1982 and was promoted to the post of A.D.O. with effect from 11.10.1983. The Court did not find any anamoly in his seniority position as shown in the seniority list and the promotions given to the petitioner and respondent no.5 on that basis. The Court did not find any anamoly in his seniority position as shown in the seniority list and the promotions given to the petitioner and respondent no.5 on that basis. That order also recorded as follows : "The petitioner, who appears in person, has not disputed the fact that he was permanently absorbed in the service of the Authority only on 19.8.1982." 4. The petitioner then filed Civil Review No. 177/1995 making the plea that the learned single Judge committed a mistake in taking 19.8.1982 as the date of his absorption in the service of the P.I.A.D.A. and in fact he was absorbed in the service of the P.I.A.D.A. with effect from 29.10.1980. That civil review petition was dismissed by order, dated 10.1.1996 wherein the learned Judge noted that there will be no material change even by taking 29.10.1980 as the date of the petitioners absorption in the P.I.A.D.A. The relevant portion from the order passed in that review petition is as follows : "It is true that from Annexure 4 it appears that for the period 25.11.1978 to 10.4.1981 the petitioner was given the benefit of pay of the post of A.D.O. and vide letter dated 19.3.1985 which is at page 30 of the original writ application, the aforesaid period was extended to 10.10.1982 but no financial benefit was given for the period 26.6.1981 to 10.10.1982. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was promoted to the post of A.D.O. in regular manner only with effect from 11.10.1982, and the petitioner raised grievance for the first time in this court in the year, 1988 in C.W.J.C. No.8756 of 1988 which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 28.2.1989, contained in Annexure E to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.3 and 4 in the connected writ case. Later, the petitioner again moved this court in C.W.J.C.No. 7645 of 1989 in which vide order dated 21.3.1990, this Court directed for disposal of the representation within three months from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter the petitioner kept on waiting for disposal of the representation, which, according to the petitioner, was disposed of in the year 1994. In the mean-time, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.1.1994 and the connected writ petition was filed on 21.11.1994. Thereafter the petitioner kept on waiting for disposal of the representation, which, according to the petitioner, was disposed of in the year 1994. In the mean-time, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.1.1994 and the connected writ petition was filed on 21.11.1994. "In my opinion, mere filing of such a representation and waiting for its result even after his retirement is not sufficient to explain the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this court for redressal of his grievance in the writ jurisdiction which is an expeditious remedy available to a citizen. "The review application is, accordingly dismissed." 5. The petitioner then filed L.P.A. No. 154 of 1996 challenging the orders passed in his writ petition (CWJC No. 10141 of 1994) and the review petition (Civil Review No. 177 of 1995). The letters patent appeal was dismissed by a bench of this court of which Alam, J. was a member by order, dated 11.1.2000. The relevant extract from this order is as follows: "Heard the appellant in person as also counsel for the respondents. On his own showing the appellant was permanently absorbed in the service of the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority with effect from 29.10.80. The appellant was promoted to the post of A.D.O. with effect from 11.10.1982, but it appears that respondent no.5 had been promoted to the post of A.D.O. with effect from 23.3.1982. Going by the dates of promotion it is apparent that the appellant cannot claim seniority over respondent no.5 "The appellant then contended that his case for promotion was not considered when the case of respondent no.5 was considered for promotion. It is not disputed before us that when respondent no.5 was holding the post of Technical Officer, a Class II post, the appellant was holding the post of Industrial Extension Officer, a Class III post. Later, the appellant held the post of Industrial Promotion Officer, also a Class II post. The authority treating respondent no.5 as senior to the appellant granted him promotion with effect from 23.3.1982. The appellant cannot make a grievance that his case was not considered for promotion because no one junior to him was considered for promotion. Later, the appellant held the post of Industrial Promotion Officer, also a Class II post. The authority treating respondent no.5 as senior to the appellant granted him promotion with effect from 23.3.1982. The appellant cannot make a grievance that his case was not considered for promotion because no one junior to him was considered for promotion. The appellants claim for seniority could be considered only after he was absorbed in the service of Patna Industrial Development Authority i.e. after his absorption with effect from 29.10.1980 and not before." "In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed." 6. Now the present civil review has been filed primarily on the plea that the bench dismissing his letters patent appeal (No. 154 of 1996) failed to take into consideration the order passed by this court in a writ petition being CWJC No. 8756 of 1988 filed much earlier by the petitioner seeking the same relief. 7. The order passed in CWJC No. 8756 of 1988 is not brought on record but from the connected records we find that after that writ petition the petitioner had filed a contempt petition being MJC No. 1193 of 1992 which was dismissed by order, dated 20.1.1994 pointing out that after the judgment of this court the authorities had passed some order and if the petitioner so desired he could challenge it by filing a proper writ petition. It was thereafter that CWJC No. 10141 of 1994 was filed the orders passed in which have already been noted above. 8. On hearing the petitioner who is appearing in person at some length, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no merit in this review petition and no case is made out for reviewing the order, dated 11.1.2000, dismissing L.P.A.No. 154 of 1996. The petitioner must clearly understand that his grievance regarding seniority is a closed chapter so far as this court is concerned and he should no longer try to reopen the matter by filing any further petitions. 9. This review petition stands dismissed.