Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 528 (PAT)

Basant Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-16

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the grievances of the petitioner are twofold, namely, that (i) though pursuant to the direction of the Executive Engineer, Advance Planning & Investigation Division, Jamui, contained in letter no. 452 dated 28.7.1992 (Annexure 3), he took over the additional charge of Draftsman Grade II on 30.7.1992 from one Ashok Kumar Ghosh, who has been transferred and since then he has been discharging the duty as Incharge Draftsman Grade II in addition to his original post, but he has not been paid even 20% allowance of the basic pay for discharge of additional duty, for which he is entitled under rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and that (ii) the authorities concerned are arbitrarily not considering his case for regular promotion against the post of Draftsman Grade II and are simply taking work as incharge of the said post now for about 13 long years even though he is eligible and fit to be considered for promotion. 2. Despite service of notice long back on 22.5.2002, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State till date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is still in service and has been discharging the duty of the post of Draftman Grade II in addition to his own duty continuously since 30th July, 1992, yet neither he has been paid any additional allowance, for which he is entitled under rule 103 of the Code nor his case has been considered for regular promotion though he is eligible. 4. Learned counsel for the State in the absence of any counter affidavit has not been able to contest the aforementioned claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the Government decision, contained in Annexure 5, to show that for such additional charge, the petitioner is entitled to 20% of the basic pay by way of additional allowance under rule 103 of the Code and also that at the time of filling up the post by regular promotion, the case of the petitioner alongwith others are required to be considered. 5. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the writ application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should be paid 20% of the basic pay by way of additional allowance admissible under rule 103 of the Code for holding additional charge of the post of Draftsman Grade II. Further, this" Court having considered that there being no dispute that the post is regular and vacant now for almost 13 years, there is need for filling up the post by regular appointment and accordingly this Court directs the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner alongwith all other eligible candidates for promotion to the said post in the light of the Government decision, contained in Memo No. 3/S 2-5-4-/88/1082 F. dated 22.2.1988 (Annexure 5), within four weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also raised grievance regarding grant of selection grade pursuant to the scheme for time bound promotion under the Assured Career Progression Scheme Rules, 2003 with effect from 1.4.1981. However, be submitted that the said question may be left open and the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the authority concerned. 7. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the authority concerned with respect to the promotion in selection grade under the aforementioned Scheme.