Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 524 (PAT)

Nityanand Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-05-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for necessary direction upon the respondents-authorities to grant him monetary benefits on account of his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.4.1993. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order as contained in Annexure-5 dated 16.11.1998 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.4.1993 but the authorities are not granting him monetary benefits with effect from due date of his promotion i.e. 1.4.1993 merely on the pretext that he had not worked for those periods on the post of Assistant Engineer and in view of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code, he would not be entitled for consequential monetary benefits. 4. The prayer of the petitioner, precisely, is opposed on the plea that the case of the petitioner is covered under Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code coupled with the circular issued by the Finance Department from time to time and thus he will get benefit from the prospective date of promotion. 5. This question was raised before this Court time without number and this Court repeatedly has held that any promotion to which person concerned was entitled and the same is given at a later date, must visit the person concerned with full consequential benefits. This court on the basis of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court has further held that in such a case, Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would not apply and a person, who has been promoted with due date, would be entitled for consequential monetary benefits irrespective of the fact as to whether he had worked during those periods on the promotional post or not. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Alappat Narana Menon vs. State of Kerala (1977 Vol. II SLR 656); in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. S.N. Nagarkar (AIR 2002 Supreme Court, 808); in the case of Dr. Paras Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar and others [1990(2) PLJR 248]; in the case of Shiva Narayan Lal vs. State of Bihar and others [1999(1) PLJR 243] and also in the case of Md. Hafiz vs. State of Bihar and others [ 2003(2) PLJR 44 ]. 6. Paras Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar and others [1990(2) PLJR 248]; in the case of Shiva Narayan Lal vs. State of Bihar and others [1999(1) PLJR 243] and also in the case of Md. Hafiz vs. State of Bihar and others [ 2003(2) PLJR 44 ]. 6. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court and also by the Apex Court, as referred to above, it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to pay consequential monetary benefits to a Government servant with due date of promotion irrespective of the fact as to whether he had worked on the promoted post during those periods. 7. In the case at hand, it aDDears that after issuance of the order as contained in Annexure-5 dated 16.11.1998, the petitioner filed his representation making reference of the cases of this Court and also that of the Supreme Court but till date the authorities concerned have not paid any heed to it. This does not appear to be a solitary case rather it appears that this situation is faced by this Court in several cases and despite directions of this Court and also Supreme Court, the authorities are turning their deaf ear to the grievances of the State employees. At the same time, the State authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with law laid down on the question and every Government employee should not rush to this Court for redressal of his grievances which could have been redressed at the ends of the State authority itself. 8. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal proposition, as referred to above, this application is allowed and the authorities concerned are directed to pay the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner on account of his promotion with effect from 1.4.1993 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- payable to the petitioner.