Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 219 (JHR)

Jagdish Ram Paswan v. B. S. E. B.

2001-03-27

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In the present case, the sole question arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary having allowed promotion from retrospective date, vide order, dated 7th January, 1999 or not. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that the petitioner, who was entitled for conversion/promotion from the post of Mechanic Grade-II to Technician Grade-II and thereafter, to the post of Technician Grade-I post, was not considered for promotion, though juniors to him were promoted. 3. After representations, no order having passed, the petitioner had to move this Court in CWJC No. 48/88(R). The case aforesaid remained pending before this Court for about nine years and was allowed with direction to the respondents to convert and/or to promote the petitioner to the post of Technician Grade- II and thereafter, to the post of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. the date, the juniors to him have been so promoted. 4. Even after the judgment of learned single Judge, the respondents preferred appeal against the same in LPA No. 340 of 1997(R). The said appeal was also dismissed on merit by order, dated 2nd February. 1998 and the appellate Court also reiterated and directed to promote the petitioner from the date juniors promoted within three months. 5. It is only thereafter, the respondents issued Office Order No. 2 on 7th January. 1999 and converted the petitioner to the post of Technician Grade-11 w.e.f. 30th September, 1977 and thereafter, promoted to the post of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 2.8.1983. i.e., from the date Junior Ganesh Lal Choudhary was so appointed and promoted. 6. The respondents in their counter-affidavit while not disputed the facts aforesaid and accepted that the juniors to petitioner had been promoted from earlier date, merely stated that the petitioner having not worked against the higher post, has not been provided with arrears of salary. 7. As the petitioner was entitled for promotion/conversion as Technician Grade-II from 30th September. 1977 and then promoted to higher post of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 2nd August. 1983, the date the Juniors were so converted and thereafter, promoted and because of inaction/laches on the part of the respondents, the case of the petitioner was not considered. 7. As the petitioner was entitled for promotion/conversion as Technician Grade-II from 30th September. 1977 and then promoted to higher post of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 2nd August. 1983, the date the Juniors were so converted and thereafter, promoted and because of inaction/laches on the part of the respondents, the case of the petitioner was not considered. The respondents having fought the matter up to appellate stage and having lost, they cannot derive any advantage on account of their inaction by denying the petitioner the consequential benefit, as flowing out of the order dated 7th January. 1999. 8. It is not a case of simplicitor order of promotion from retrospective date, but the promotion granted by the orders of the Court, as he was denied promotion from the due date. 9. The respondents are accordingly, directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the Technician Grade-II w.e.f. 30th September, 1977 and then to the post of Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 2nd August, 1983, after taking into consideration the revision of pay, if any made, in the meantime and on such fixation, pay the arrears of salary, after adjusting the amount which has already been paid, within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will pay interest @ 8% to be calculated from the date 6f judgment till the same is being paid. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. 11. Petition allowed.