Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 143 (PAT)

Awadh Narayan Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2005-02-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.R Bhagat, learned Govt. Pleader No. 4 for the respondents and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. By this application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of directions upon the respondents to give them the benefits of second time-bound promotion notionally with effect from 1.4.1986 and also to pay the consequential monetary benefits. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are Class-ll employees and they have completed 25 years of qualifying services and thereafter they superannuated but the benefits of second time-bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1986 were not given to them. It is further submitted that the benefits of first time-bound promotion was given to the petitioners with effect from 1.4.1981 and after completion of 25 years of qualifying services they were entitled to get the benefits of second time-bound promotion which admittedly has not been given to them. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that several juniors whose names figured much below the petitioners in gradation list were given the benefits of second time-bound promotion but the same was denied to the petitioners. 4. in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the Finance Department has advised for grant of the benefits of second time-bound promotion to those officers from the date of their appointment in the cadre and the matter is still under consideration. 5. In paragraph 17 of the writ application it is stated that the petitioners have been shown above some of the officers who have been given the benefits of second time-bound promotion. 6. No plausible explanation has been . made in the counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the cases of the petitioners were ignored while granting the benefits of second time-bound promotion to their juniors. 7. it is the admitted fact that the petitioners and the officers who got the benefits of second time-bound promotion belong to the same cadre and they have been shown juniors to them in the gradation list. 8. Mr. 7. it is the admitted fact that the petitioners and the officers who got the benefits of second time-bound promotion belong to the same cadre and they have been shown juniors to them in the gradation list. 8. Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that since the Finance Department has already concurred in the matter in regard to grant of the benefits of second time-bound promotion to the petitioners, necessary decision would be taken by the concerned Department in the near future. 9. From the pleadings of the parties it is manifest that the petitioners were eligible for the promotional benefits. It is also the admitted position that the petitioners became entitled for grant of the benefits of second time-bound promotion. By now it appears that the petitioners have superannuated and thus they are held to be entitled for the benefits of the second timebound promotion notionally. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, the State Authorities are directed to grant the benefits of the second time-bound promotion to the petitioners with effect from the due date notionally in the same manner it has been given to their juniors. They are further directed to pay the other consequential monetary benefits to the petitioners. This exercise, however, must be completedoy the State Authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. With this direction/observation, this writ application is disposed of.