Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 379 (PAT)

Sabbir Ahmad v. State of Bihar

2005-04-01

body2005
ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Moharrir in the Directorate of Survey and Settlement on 29.11.1969 in the pay scale of Rs.85-210/-. At this point of time Moharrir, Mensarim and Peskar in the Department of Survey and Settlement formed separate cadre. In pursuance of the 3rd Pay Revision Committee report the aforesaid three cadres were merged in one common scale of Rs. 220-316/- Thus the pay scale of Moharrir and Mensarim were brought at par. In consequence of this merger the designation of the petitioner as Moharrir was changed to that of Mensarim in the pay scale of Rs. 220/316/- Necessary orders to this effect were issued on 27.12.1977 as contained in Annexure 3 to the present application. In accordance with the government resolution dated 30.12.1981 according benefits of time bound promotion on completion of ten years of service the petitioner was granted first time bound promotion by an order dated 1.7.1987 with effect from 1.4.1981. The respondents rightly counted the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on 29.11.1969. Success of the petitioner proved short lived. By an order dated 19.12.1994 the time bound promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled and orders for recovery of the monetary benefits made available to him were also passed. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in CWJC No. 4111/95. By order dated 18.9.1995, order of the respondent dated 19.12.1994 cancelling grant of first time bound promotion to the petitioner from 1.4.1981 was set aside and the matter remanded to the authorities to reconsider their decision after grant of opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Annexure 11, the order presently impugned then came to be passed. The order would record that the post of Moharrir and Mensarim were separate cadres and their pay scales were different he petitioner despite having been appointed as Moharrir on 29.11.1969 was appointed afresh as Mensarim on 27.12.1977. Thus the ten years period for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion would have to be considered from the date that the petitioner was appointed as Mensarim. Thus the petitioner was entitled to the grant of 1st time bound promotion from 27.12.87 and not from 1.4.1981. 4. Thus the ten years period for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion would have to be considered from the date that the petitioner was appointed as Mensarim. Thus the petitioner was entitled to the grant of 1st time bound promotion from 27.12.87 and not from 1.4.1981. 4. This Court is constrained to observe that the controversy in the present writ application, is of sheer common sense not calling for any legal expertise. This Court is satisfied from Annexure 3, a document of the respondents themselves, that they were under no misconception that the petitioner was never appointed afresh as a Mensarim. All that happened was that in consequence of the merger of cadres of Muharrir and Mensarim, the designation of the petitioner was changed. The fact that though they may have been separate cadres was of no consequence to the respondents and that is the reason why the words 'change of designation' have been used in Annexure 3. This would be further corroborated by the statements made in para 11 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents which would expressly acknowledge this situation. Notwithstanding the same the respondent no.2 has proceeded to consider the matter as if the redesignation of the petitioner as Mensarim consequent to the merger of cadre was a fresh appointment. This in itself was contrary to the documents of the respondents themselves and per se display complete non-application of mind by the said respondent to the issue before him which he was required to consider and decide. The order is thus clearly arbitrary. The order dated 10.8.1999 at Annexure 11 is consequently set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to the grant of first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 as originally granted to him. The petitioner would also be entitled to all arrears of monetary benefits in pursuance thereof with interest @ 7% per annum. If any recovery has been made from the petitioner the same must be refunded to him. Let this be so done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. Failure to pay the dues within the time fixed shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till such time that the same be not paid to the petitioner. 5. The writ application stands allowed, with the directions indicated.