Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 592 (PAT)

Ram Bharosa Das v. State Of Bihar

2004-06-23

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to promote him to the post of Inspector of Police from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 26.9.1995, from which date his juniors were promoted. He also seeks direction for payment of consequential monetary benefits. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of inspector of Police in 1995 itself and the D.G. Board, which met to consider the cases of promotion of similarly situated persons to the post of Inspector of Police on 21.5.1997 and 27.5.1997, considered the case of the petitioner as well and for want of his service records, his case was kept in abeyance, which would be manifest from annexure 3 itself. It is further submitted that the D.G. Board again in its meeting held in the year 2001 considered the case of the petitioner and took a decision to promote him to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 5.5.1999, but in fact, he was notified for monetary benefits with effect from 31.7.2001. Learned counsel further points out from the counter affidavit that immediate junior, who was at serial No. 2732, was given promotion with effect from 5.5.1999 and he was made entitled for monetary benefit with effect from that date. But, so far the case of the petitioner is concerned, he is being discriminated without any rhyme or reason. 4. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 5.5.1999. However, in view of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code, the D.G. Board decided to give him the monetary benefits of promotion with effect from 31.7.2001. 5. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, as referred to above, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get consequential monetary benefit with effect from the date he was promoted, i.e. with effect from 5.5.1999 irrespective of the fact as to whether he had joined the post and whether he had worked or not. 6. 6. It is admitted position that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 5.5.1999 at par with his immediate junior, who was at serial No. 2732 and he got the monetary benefit from 5.5.1999 itself. It is also admitted position that the D.G. Board, which met in 1997, kept the case of the petitioner in abeyance for want of relevant records. 7. From the facts, as stated above, it appears to me that the petitioner was not at fault and in case his case was kept in abeyance for want of certain relevant records, in my opinion, he would be entitled for monetary benefit with effect from the date he was already promoted, i.e. with effect from 5.5.1999 itself. Since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 5.5.1999 itself, there would be no application of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code and he would be entitled for consequential monetary benefit with effect from the date of promotion. 8. In this regard, reference may be made to the cases of Food Corporation of India V/s. S.N. Nagarkar, AIR 2002 SC 808 , Dr. Paras Nath Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 1990 (1) Bihar Law Journal Reports, 648, Shiv Narayan Lal V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 1999 (1) Patna Law Journal Reports, 243 and Md. Hafiz V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 2003 (2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 44. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions, as referred to above, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled for all his consequential monetary benefits with effect from 5.5.1999, the date on which he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. The authorities concerned accordingly are directed to pay the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 5.5.1999, if not already paid, by the earliest possible not later than three months. 10. With the direction/observation aforesaid this application is disposed of.