Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 877 (PAT)

Sudhakar Prasad Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-23

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions upon the respondents to place him in the gradation list of Assistant Engineers of Water Resources (Irrigation) Department on the basis of the position fixed for the Junior Engineers working in the same Department from which the petitioner and others including juniors were promoted in the cadre of Assistant Engineers with effect from different dates. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to promote him to the post of Executive Engineer with due date of promotion. 3. From the materials on record it appears that after merger of different wings . of the Irrigation Department in the year 1969 the petitioner and others became employees of the Water Resources Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna. The petitioner initially was appointed as Junior Engineer and subsequently he was promoted in the cadre of Assistant Engineers with effect from 14.6.1975. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the gradation list of Junior Engineers as contained in annexure 3, the petitioner was placed above one Deo Chandra Mishra, but in the gradation list of Assistant Engineers he has been placed much below Deo Chandra Mishra in utter disregard to the date of entry in services. It is further submitted that the position as mentioned in the gradation list of Junior Engineers could have been maintained in the gradation list of the Assistant Engineers and, accordingly inter se seniority could have been decided. It is also submitted that his position was fixed on the basis of the date of his entry in the Bihar Engineering Services Class II, but his position had not been fixed on the basis of his date of birth. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein inter alia, that after merger of different wings of the Irrigation Department a combined tentative gradation list of Junior Engineers was published on 29.8.1977 and thereafter a final gradation list was published in 1978. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein inter alia, that after merger of different wings of the Irrigation Department a combined tentative gradation list of Junior Engineers was published on 29.8.1977 and thereafter a final gradation list was published in 1978. However, the final gradation list was challenged in the Supreme Court and after the judgment of the Supreme Court final gradation list of Junior Engineers was published again on 25.4.1990 and before that the cadre of the Assistant Engineers was amalgamated and a gradation list was prepared according to the date of their entry in Bihar Engineering Services Class Il. It is also stated that the gradation list was prepared in consonance with the direction of this Court as well as the Apex Court and now it would not be possible to fix the seniority of the petitioner with retrospective effect, 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was one of the respondents in special leave petition before the Supreme Court and at no point of time he raised any objection with regard to his position in the gradation list. 7. From the materials on record it appears that the petitioner was born in the cadre of Assistant Engineers on 14.6.1975, whereas one Deo Chandra Mishra was born in the same cadre on 9.8.1973. According to the date of entry, Deo Chandra Mishra was placed above the petitioner and the position of the petitioner was maintained as per the date of his entry in the cadre of Assistant Engineers. The position of the petitioner vis-a-vis Deo Chandra Mishra as shown in the gradation list of the Junior Engineers, therefore, could not have been maintained in the gradation list of the Assistant Engineers which was prepared according to the date of entry. 8. Mr. S.C. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the petitioner has already superannuated with effect from 1.4.1994. 9. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect. More so, when the matter went up to the Apex Court and ultimately the gradation list was prepared, it would not be appropriate for this Court to disturb the same and that also after long lapse of time. 10. More so, when the matter went up to the Apex Court and ultimately the gradation list was prepared, it would not be appropriate for this Court to disturb the same and that also after long lapse of time. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application. 11. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. 12. No costs.