Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 666 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-07

R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court on earlier occasions also but as his grievances still stand not redressed, he has again come to this Court. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1969 and was confirmed as the same in June, 1972. On 10-7-1981 he was granted officiating promotion to the post of Inspector and on 13-11-1992 he was confirmed against the substantive vacancy of 1982 with effect from 4-1-1988. As some of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of Dy Superintendent of Police ignoring the alleged claim of the petitioner regarding his seniority, the petitioner filed C.W. J.C. No. 4697 of 1996. On 9-7-1997 the said writ application was disposed of with the directions to the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Dy Superintendent of Police from the date the juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion also counting the petitioners seniority from the date of officiation, within six months from the date of production/receipt of the copy of the said order. It appears that nothing was done in the matter, therefore, the petitioner was required to file M.J.C. No. 784 of 1998. During the pendency of the said contempt application, the respondents issued an order granting promotion to the petitioner and others to the post of Dy Superintendent of Police from the date of joining. It appears that during hearing of contempt application an objection was raised by the petitioners counsel that the promotion order dated 4- 3-1999 was not in accordance with the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4697 of 1996. The said contempt application was disposed of on 10-3-1999 with a direction to grant promotion to the petitioner from retrospective date and ensure strict compliance of the order in its letter and spirit. On 8-12-1999 the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held. In the meeting dated 8-12-1999 (proceedings are attached at Annexure-4) the Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, the Home Secretary, the D.G./I.G. of Police, the Dy. Secretary (Home) (Spl.) Department took active part. On 8-12-1999 the Departmental Promotion Committee after taking into consideration the earlier judgments of this Court ordered that the petitioner be promoted at least from the date when his juniors were promoted. Secretary (Home) (Spl.) Department took active part. On 8-12-1999 the Departmental Promotion Committee after taking into consideration the earlier judgments of this Court ordered that the petitioner be promoted at least from the date when his juniors were promoted. The Departmental Promotion Committee observed that the present petitioner Arun Kumar Sinha, Sri Hira Lal Jha, Sri Gangeshwar Sharma were found fit for promotion from 1-6-1994. The Departmental Promotion Committee made their recommendations for promotion to the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Policemen the basis of case of Sri Ramashraya Singh. 4. Ordinarily in view of the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee due promotion along with the benefits ought to have been given to the petitioner but for the Officers and the Departmental Officers, the petitioner was not given his dues and has been compelled to come back to this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the earlier directions of this Court contained in the judgment of the writ application and the contempt application so also in view of Annexure-4, the petitioner must be given his due promotion along with the benefits. 6. The respondents in their counter have submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 120 of 1996 has passed the order on 16-12-1999 as under:- - "In the meantime, the State will not pass any orders granting benefit of continuous officiation to any Officer of the combined cadre basing itself upon the judgment impugned. If pursuant to any specific order on a petition filed by any officer, the Court has passed specific orders and those officers have been promoted, those orders must be respected." 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the interim order granted by this Court in the pending L.P.A. No. 120 of 1996, the recommendations made under Annexure-4 cannot be carried out and the State cannot pass any orders in the matter. I am unable to concede to this submission. A fair understanding of the order passed by the Division Bench would make it clear that if pursuant to any specific order on a petition filed by any officer, the Court had passed specific orders and those Officers have been promoted, such orders must be respected. I am unable to concede to this submission. A fair understanding of the order passed by the Division Bench would make it clear that if pursuant to any specific order on a petition filed by any officer, the Court had passed specific orders and those Officers have been promoted, such orders must be respected. In M.J.C. No. 784 of 1998 on 10-3-1999 when the promotion order was placed before the Court, this Court observed that cases of the petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. but "the same were not considered from the date the petitioners juniors were so promoted. This Court also observed that there were some misunderstanding on the part of the opposite parties about the order passed by this Court. This Court instead of taking any action against the department or the officers observed that one opportunity should be given to the respondents to comply with the Courts order passed in C. W. J.C. No. 4697 of. 1996 in its letter and spirit. The order dated 9-7-1997 passed in C.W. J.C. No. 4697/1996 was clearly stipulating that the respondents are to provide such seniority in favour of the petitioners and give the consequential benefits of the same. The respondents were obliged to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the higher post of Dy. S.P., if any junior including Ramashraya Singh had already been promoted to the higher post of Dy. S.P. From the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4697/1996 it would clearly appear that the petitioners were entitled for their consideration to the higher post of Dy. S.P., if any junior including Ramashray Singh were already promoted. The same was the direction of this Court in M.J.C. No. 784 of 1998. 8. Once this Court gave the direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners and on 8-12-1999 in compliance of the orders of this Court, the Departmental Promotion Committee found that the petitioners were entitled to promotion from a particular date then it would be bad on the part of the State Government or the departmental authorities to say that because of the stay order dated 16-12-1999, they would not give effect to the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee or would not observe the orders passed by this Court in the writ application and the contempt application. In fact, it is high-handedness of the departmental authorities. An Officer when he reaches the higher pedestal must have a wider look and large heart. He should not play games with the subordinates and refuse their dues to them. An Officer is not only a conscious keeper of the State Government but he is also a care taker of the interest of his subordinates. An officer sitting on a high chair should never forget that some day he was also oppressed under the hands of his seniors and his dues were denied to him, therefore, the right time has come when instead of being revengeful he must be vindictive and should see that the dues are given to his subordinates right in time so that not only such officers may work sincerely but also maintain their absolute confidence in the system and their seniors. One officer or the other, if misinterpreted the orders of this Court and denied the promotions and consequential benefits to the subordinates then such action on the part of such officer is unpardonable. If transfer and termination/retirement are the incidences of service then to reach on the zenith and receive all the benefits would also flow from the service conditions. 9. In the present matter the interpretation putforth by the respondents is patently illegal. The Division Bench had clearly stated that if pursuant to any specific order on a petition filed by any Officer, the Court has passed the specific orders and those officers have been promoted, those orders must be respected. Undisputedly in the matter of the present petitioner, proper orders were passed in favour of the petitioners. In the year 1997 for the reasons best known to the Department and the Government, proper action was not taken and the petitioner was required to rush to this Court with an application for drawing contempt proceedings. The said application worked as an eye-opener though the respondents did not properly appreciate the order and issued the promotion order effective from 4-3-1999. This Court showing benevolence and magnanimity instead of sending the wrong doers to jail for committing contempt of the lawful authority of this Court granted one more opportunity to comply with the earlier orders passed by this Court. This Court showing benevolence and magnanimity instead of sending the wrong doers to jail for committing contempt of the lawful authority of this Court granted one more opportunity to comply with the earlier orders passed by this Court. The said orders passed by this Court were that if juniors to the petitioners have already been promoted then the petitioners be also considered and be given promotion at least from the date his junior Sri Ramashray Singh and other juniors were promoted. The orders passed by the Departmental Promotion Committee were simply consequential to the orders passed by this Court. Under such circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioners who were entitled to the benefits flowing from the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 8-12-1999 could be denied the benefits on the ground of the stay order granted in L.P.A. No. 120/1996. The respondents are hereby directed to issue necessary notifications and give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. If this time the directions of this Court are not observed within six weeks from today then the concerned Officers including the Special Secretary (Home) may be taken to task. The petitioner in case of breach of this order is allowed to make an application in this case, for taking proper steps. The petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand).