Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 874 (PAT)

Ram Bilas Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-23

R.M.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for direction to the respondents to give him time bound promotions from the date he completed 10 and 25 years of his service and further directing them to give consequential benefits also and pay the arrears with interest arising out of such promotion. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the counter affidavit on behalf of the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram (respondent No. 4), petitioner is also aggrieved by the fixation of his seniority vide Annexure-B in which several persons placed below him in the letter of absorption, contained in Annexure-7 have been placed above him, such, as serial Nos. 17, 18 and 19 whereas the petitioner has been placed at serials No. 36 for no valid justification. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner and several others were initially appointed in the work charge establishment vide Annexure-2 as Work Sarkar in River Valley Project. The Government decided not to retrench the services of such employees working in the River Valley Project and, accordingly, he was relieved from the River Valley Project and joined as Lower Division Clerk in Rohtas district in the year 1974. Finally the services of the petitioner along with others were absorbed vide order dated 3.12.1976 contained in Annexure-7. In December 1981 the State Government came out with a resolution with respect to grant of time bound promotion first one on completion of 10 years and second on completion of 25 years of service. Later in 1987 the Government vide its resolution No. 1503 dated 27.3.1987 decided to count the services of such regular employee rendered in the work charge establishment for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion. However, by the said Government decision financial benefit was to be given with effect from the date of the said Government decision and not from earlier due date. Accordingly, it is stated that several persons junior to the petitioner were given time bound promotion by counting their services from the date of initial appointment whereas the petitioner has been given benefit of time bound promotion on the basis of his date of absorption in regular service on 4.12.1976. 4. Accordingly, it is stated that several persons junior to the petitioner were given time bound promotion by counting their services from the date of initial appointment whereas the petitioner has been given benefit of time bound promotion on the basis of his date of absorption in regular service on 4.12.1976. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, the stand of the State is that the petitioner joined in the State service on 4.12.1976 in pursuance to memo dated 3.12.1976. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for second time bound promotion as per the Finance Departments resolution No. 660 dated 8.2.1999. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that as the benefit of time bound promotion has been abolished with effect from 1.1.1996 i.e. before completion of 25 years of total service, the petitioner has not been granted second timed bound promotion. In the counter affidavit, respondent No. 4 has annexed the gradation list of Clerks of Rohtas district as Annexure-B in which persons whose services were absorbed by the same order Annexure-7 arid were placed below the petitioner has been shown at serial Nos. 17, 18 and 19 and whereas the name of the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 36. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that action of the respondents in denying the promotion by not counting the services rendered by the petitioner in work charge establishment is wholly arbitrary and contrary to Government resolution dated 27.3.1987, which specifically provides that the services rendered by an employee in the work charge establishment before coming into regular establishment are to be counted for the purpose of grant of time bound promotions. Learned counsel submitted that there is no justification in placing the petitioner below serial Nos. 17, 18 and 19 in the gradation list. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show as to how the name of serial Nos. 17,18 and 19 were placed above this petitioner when they were absorbed by the same order dated 3.12.1976 and in that order they have been placed below the petitioner. However, he contended that in so far as the counting of service is concerned, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the same as his employment in work charge establishment was not in Government rather his employment was in River Valley Project. However, he contended that in so far as the counting of service is concerned, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the same as his employment in work charge establishment was not in Government rather his employment was in River Valley Project. It is true that the Government taking sympathetic view absorbed him in service of the State Government vide Annexure-7 but he cannot derive benefit from 1987 government decision to count his service rendered by him in work charge establishment. 7. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. The order of appointment contained in Annexure-2 itself shows that the petitioner was appointed by the Superintending Engineer, Tenughat Dam Circle No. Ill in the work charge establishment. Even assuming that the appointment was for River Valley Project which was a project of the Government, there was no justification to deny the services rendered by the petitioner in such project for the purpose of counting the same for grant of time bound promotions in view of the Government resolution. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show that River Valley Project was of private organisation. Moreover, as I have already mentioned above, the appointment of the petitioner in the work charge establishment was by the Superintending Engineer of the State Government and, thus, I do not find any substance in the said plea advanced on behalf of the State that since the petitioner was in work charge establishment of the project and not of the Government he would not be entitled to get the benefit of the services rendered by him before his regularisation for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion. 8. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court finds that denial of benefit of time bound promotion to the petitioner from due date i.e. first on completion of 10 years of services and second on completion of 25 years of services right from the date he was employed in the work charge establishment is wholly arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the Government decision besides being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, this Court finds that fixation of his seniority in the gradation list (Annexure-B) does not appear to be proper. Further, this Court finds that fixation of his seniority in the gradation list (Annexure-B) does not appear to be proper. However, since the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the gradation list, this Court finds it difficult to give specific relief against the said gradation list, but, directs respondent No. 4 to re-examine the claim of the petitioner regarding proper fixation of seniority keeping in view the order of their absorption in service, contained in Annexure-7. 9. Writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of time bound promotion from due date by counting his services rendered by him in the work charge establishment from 20.7.1970 and give all consequential benefits including financial benefit accordingly pursuant to the Government notification contained in Finance department resolution No 1503 dated 27.3.1987.