Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 401 (PAT)

Sangam Lal Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2003-04-08

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Annexure-1 vide letter no. 2231/Birpur dated 26.6.2002 issued by respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Assistants to the post of Mazdoors. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, they were appointed as muster roll labourers under work charged establishment vide letter no. 1177 dated 24.4.1968 as contained in Annexure-2 and thereafter they were promoted to the next higher grade with effect from 1.6.1973 vide order as contained in Annexure-3 and subsequently, they were regularised in higher grade vide order as contained in Annexure-4 and by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1, they have been reverted to the post of Mazdoors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were promoted in the next higher grade vide order as contained in Annexure-3 with effect from 1.6.1973, they could not have been reverted back to their substantive post after lapse of about 30 years. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunities of being heard before passing the order impugned. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating herein, inter alia, that the petitioners could not have been promoted in the next higher grade nor they could have been regularised in the work charged establishment, as per instruction of the State Government and at best they could have been regularised as Mazdoor and while scrutinising the case of one Jhabar Mandal, pursuant to the direction of this Court, it was detected that the petitioners were wrongly and illegally promoted and regularised. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the instant case, the irregularities committed earlier have been rectified by issuing the order as contained in Annexure-1 and as such, the petitioners have been placed on the post and the payscales which are admissible to them, as per instruction/circular of the State Government. 7. From the pleadings of the petitioners, it appears that they were regularised in the next higher grade vide order as contained in Annexure-3 dated 1.6.1973 and thereafter time bound promotions were also granted to them. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were responsible for their regularisation. 7. From the pleadings of the petitioners, it appears that they were regularised in the next higher grade vide order as contained in Annexure-3 dated 1.6.1973 and thereafter time bound promotions were also granted to them. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were responsible for their regularisation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners continued on the regularised post for about 30 years and now they are being reverted back to the post of Mazdoors. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners now submits that one Mohan Chandra Jha whose promotion from the post of Time Keeper to Supervisor Grade II was cancelled by the respondents, moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12739 of 2000 which was allowed and thereafter vide departmental letter no. 2240/Birpur date 26.6.2002, promotion of Mohan Chandra Jha was restored vide order as contained in Annexure-8. The case of the petitioners is similar to that of Mohan Chandra Jha and the stand of the State that the irregularity committed earlier is being rectified is wholly baseless and unreasonable. This is the admitted position that the petitioners remained regularised since 1973 and they must be on the verge of their retirement and, therefore, the case of the petitioners should be treated at par with the case of Mohan Chandra Jha. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, tnis application is allowed and the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.