Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 844 (PAT)

Tarkeshwar Pathak v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-19

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to Government Pleader No. VII for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to promote him to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted with effect from 20th August, 1994. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and in due course, the case of promotion of the persons like the petitioner was considered by the Board and similarly situated persons and even junior to the petitioner were promoted vide order as contained in Annexure-4 vide District Order No. 131/97 whereby and whereunder promotion was given to them on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 20th August, 1994 but the case of the petitioner was not considered. It is further submitted by learned counsel that position of the petitioner in the gradation list was at serial no. 2722 whereas one person just above him at serial no. 2721, namely, Satyendra Kumar Sharma and another person just below him at serial no. 2723, namely, Izhaul Haque were promoted but the case of the petitioner was not considered though he is similarly situated to them. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner at one stage was proceeded against and vide District Order No. 518/92, an order of punishment withholding salary for six months was passed but the same was set aside by the appellate Court vide order as contained in Annexure-2 vide District Order No. 1961/95 and therefore, in all respects, the petitioner was eligible for promotion and his case could have been considered for promotion along with other similarly situated persons, as referred to above. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein precisely it is stated that the case of the similarly situated persons was considered by the Board in the year. 1994 and by that time the order of punishment passed against the petitioner was very much operative and, therefore, keeping in view this aspect of the matter his case was not considered. However, the respondents are silent in their counter affidavit about the order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the order of punishment passed against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2. 5. However, the respondents are silent in their counter affidavit about the order passed by the appellate authority setting aside the order of punishment passed against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2. 5. From the materials, as discussed above, it appears that the petitioner, after setting aside his order of punishment became entitled for promotion and as it appears from the counter affidavit that the authorities considered him for promotion and he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 5.3.2002 vide Memo No. 1016/P2, however, the petitioner now claims that since he is similarly situated to other persons who have been promoted vide order as contained in Annexure-4 with effect from 20th August, 1994 he should also be considered in the like manner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and claim of the petitioner is not in much dispute. Since the order of punishment passed against the petitioner in 1992 was set aside in the year, 1995, the petitioner was eligible for promotion immediately thereafter at par with the similarly situated persons or even similarly situated juniors.who have already been promoted. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, I find force in the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. The respondents-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in case any representation is filed by the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 20th August, 1994 or with effect from the date his juniors and similarly situated persons have been promoted. This exercise, however, must be completed by the authorities within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.