Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 875 (PAT)

Syed Zaki Imam v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-27

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22nd of June, 1999 (Annexure-1) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion has been rejected. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was appointed as Correspondence Clerk in the Patna Water Board on 27.6.1960. He retired from service holding the said post on 31.3.1994. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the resolution no. 10770 dated 30.12.1981, the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation and Patna Water Board were entitled for grant of the time bound promotion and in spite of request made by him time bound promotion was not given. Petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred CWJC No. 7624 of 1995 (Sayed Zaki Imam V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) [reported in 1996(2) PLJR 910] before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 26th of August, 1996 (Annexure-3) directed the Executive Officer of the Patna Water Board to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion in terms of the letter dated 18th of January, 1992 of respondent no. 2 of the said writ application. 3. It is relevant here to state that one Sashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma, an employee of the Patna Municipal Corporation also filed CWJC No. 11135 of 1992 before this Court making the prayer for grant of time bound promotion. This Court by judgment dated 8th of February, 1995 (Annexure-5) allowed his application in the following words: "Accordingly the writ application is allowed. Let writ of mandamus be issued to respondent no. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion pursuant to the decision contained in annexure-7 and pass final order within a period of two months from today." 4. In pursuance of the said order the State Government by its letter dated 15th of November, 1995 (Annexure-4) directed the Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation to grant time bound promotion to said Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma but observed that same shall not be treated as precedent. 5. In pursuance of the said order the State Government by its letter dated 15th of November, 1995 (Annexure-4) directed the Administrator of the Patna Municipal Corporation to grant time bound promotion to said Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma but observed that same shall not be treated as precedent. 5. Mr.Rudra Deo Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of this Court dated 26th of August, 1996 passed in CWJC No. 7624 of 1995 (Syed Zaki Imam V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and judgment dated 8th of February, 1995 passed by this Court in CWJC No.11135 of 1992 (Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) petitioner is entitled for the time bound promotion. 6. Mr. Prem Kumar Verma, however, appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 submits that in view of the communication of the State Government dated 15th of November, 1995 (Annexure-4) promotion granted to Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma cannot be treated as precedent and as such the petitioner shall not be entitled for grant of the time bound promotion. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. This Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma (supra) had held that the employees shall be entitled for the time bound promotion. Respondents have not assailed the said order before any superior court. Merely on the ground that the State in its communication has stated that it shall not be treated as precedent, the effect of the said judgment cannot be diluted and a person covered by the said judgment has to be given the same benefit. Mr. Verma does not dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sharma (supra). In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent-Patna Water Board to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.