Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1260 (PAT)

Sri Ambika Prasad Ram v. State Of Bihar

2004-12-17

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order, as contained in memo No. 313 dated 9.6.1999, contained in annexure 3, whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for grant of first time bound and second time bound promotion has been rejected. 3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as an assistant in Bhagalpur Collectorate and he superannuated with effect from 31.1.1998. 4. Now a grievance has been made by the petitioner that he was not given any promotion during his service tenure, whereas he was entitled for grant of first time bound and second time bound promotion after lapse of 20 years from his appointment, but the authorities did not grant him even time bound promotion. 5. it appears that the petitioner earlier had come to this Court for the same self grievance in CWJC No. 13081 of 1996. The writ application aforesaid was disposed of on 30th November, 1998 vide order, as contained in annexure 1 holding that in view of the pleadings of the parties, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. However, a liberty was given to the petitioner to file a representation before the Collector, Banka for redressal of his grievances. Pursuant to order of this Court, the petitioner filed his representation, which was considered and disposed of by the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.1.1998 and thereafter he made his claim for time bound promotion on 12.2.1999. It is further submitted that the petitioner claimed his promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1986, respectively, without passing the required departmental examination. It is also submitted by learned counsel that exemption in certain cases has been made permissible by virtue of letter No. 4674 dated 15.5.1992, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, and since the petitioner has claimed his promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1986, respectively, necessary exemption cannot be granted to him retrospectively. 7. From annexure 3, it appears that the representation of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that his claim is not permissible without passing of the departmental examination in view of letter No. 4674 dated 15.5.1992, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, as it is operating prospectively. 8. 7. From annexure 3, it appears that the representation of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that his claim is not permissible without passing of the departmental examination in view of letter No. 4674 dated 15.5.1992, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, as it is operating prospectively. 8. The claim of the petitioner per se appears to be not permissible since he has not passed the departmental examination and exemption can be granted in view of the letter of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, aforesaid, after 15.5.1992. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application. 10. It is, accordingly, dismissed.