Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 257 (JHR)

Tarkeshwar Prasad Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-04-12

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that he was entitled to Junior Selection Grade by way of First Time Bound Promotion and Senior Selection Grade by way of Second Time Bound Promotion and on the basis of notional promotion a direction be issued for payment of consequential monetary benefits. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad in the year 1945. In 1974 the service of the petitioner was placed under the State Transport Commissioner, Patna. In 1980 petitioner was transferred and posted in the District Transport Office, Giridih. On 31.12.1987 petitioner was superannuated and he was paid 90% provisional pension. After superannuation, petitioner made several representations to the Transport Commissioner, Patna for sending service-book of the petitioner to Giridih. But ultimately the Transport Commissioner informed the District Transport Officer, Giridih that the service-book of the petitioner is not available and advised him for preparation of another service-book. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given pensionary benefits on the basis of time bound promotion which he was entitled first after completion of 10 years of service and second on completion of 25 years of service. It is stated that the Transport Commissioner, Patna informed the petitioner that he was not entitled to such promotion because he did not pass the accounts examination. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents the claim of the petitioner has been challenged on the ground inter alia that the writ application was filed after the lapse of 14 years. It is further stated that after retirement in 1987, petitioner has been getting pension in accordance with law. It is further stated that under Rule 157, Clause (3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Misc. Rules, a clear in Muffasil office who has not passed the preliminary examination, neither may be confirmed in the service nor allowed to cross the efficiency bar and such employee can not be given selection grade. 4. I have heard Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated in 1987 and this writ application has been filed after 14 years of retirement claiming First Time Bound Promotion and Second Time Bound Promotion, which according to the petitioner, he was entitled in 1955 and 1970 respectively. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated in 1987 and this writ application has been filed after 14 years of retirement claiming First Time Bound Promotion and Second Time Bound Promotion, which according to the petitioner, he was entitled in 1955 and 1970 respectively. In paragraph 14 of the writ application it is stated by the petitioner that he was entitled to First Time Bound Promotion after completion of 10 years and another Time Bound Promotion after completion of 25 years of service but the respondents never give such promotion to the petitioner during his whole career of service and retired without any promotion. No where in the writ application there is any pleading by the petitioner that during his service period, he ever raised objection and made representation for the grant of Time Bound Promotion. Even after retirement, petitioner received his retirement benefits and is getting pension. It is only after expiry of 14 years, petitioner has moved this court with a relief that this Court give declaration that he was entitled to First and Second Time Bound Promotion in the year 1955 and 1970 respectively. In my considered view this Court in the writ petition filed by retired employee can not grant such relief to an employee after 14 years of his retirement that he was entitled to First Time Bound Promotion in 1955 and Second Time Bound Promotion in 1970. 6. Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioner put reliance on the two decisions of the Patna High Court in the case of Lala Devendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 228 , and in the case of Paras Nath Misra v. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) PLJR 690 . In my opinion, these two decisions are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. 8. Application dismissed.