Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 145 (PAT)

Vidya Nand Jha v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-18

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Government Advocate No. 10, for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to restore his promotion on the post of Supervisor Grade-ll retrospectively with effect from 1.5.1976 with all consequential benefits in the light of order dated 1.3.2000 passed in LPA No. 1280/1999 (Manohar Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) since the promotion of other similarly situated persons has been restored. 3. Shorn of unnecessary facts, by letter no. 3933 dated 31.12.1996 of the Superintending Engineer (Annexure-2), the order of promotion of six persons on the post of Supervisor Grade-ll including the petitioner was cancelled stating that it was so ordered in CWJC No. 10216/1995 (Kali Kant Mishra and Others, vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). No notice or show cause was issued to the petitioner before passing of the aforesaid order. One of the six affected persons, namely, Manohar Choudhary whose promotion was also cancelled by the said order as contained in Annexure-2 had moved this Court against the said order in CWJC No. 8734 of 1997 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 9.8.1999 whereupon the said Manohar Choudhary filed LPA No. 1280 of 1999 which was heard and finally allowed on 1.3.2000. In the said order of this Court it was clearly observed that there was no direction to cancel the promotion of any other person in the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10216 of 1995 and the said fact was also not disputed by the State-counsel. This Court also took note of the fact that no notice was served upon the appellant to put forward his case nor he was served with any notice pointing out any irregularity or illegality in the matter of promotion and for the said reasons the order dated 31.12.1996 of the Superintending Engineer was quashed. The respondents were however, given liberty to proceed in accordance with law after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of representing his case. 4. The respondents were however, given liberty to proceed in accordance with law after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of representing his case. 4. Thereafter another employee affected from the order dated 31.12.1996, namely, Mohan Chandra Jha filed CWJC No. 12739 of 2000 which was disposed of on 7.12.2000 taking note of the decision of the LPA Bench dated 1.3.2000 with a direction to the petitioner therein to file a representation before the Secretary of the Department to show that his case stands on same footing as the case of Manohar Choudhary and if it is so found by the Secretary, then, it was directed that similar relief should be given to the petitioner also. 5. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he also filed a representation before the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Birpur to be given the same benefit as was granted to Manohar Choudhary since his case stood on the same footing. However, no heed has been paid by the authorities to the said representation and the respondents have not chosen to state anything with respect to the said representation. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, the facts stated in the writ petition are not denied rather in paragraph 7 it is admitted that the petitioner is also an affected person out of those six persons. Nothing has been shown in the counter affidavit to deny that the case of the petitioner, in any case, is different from that of Manohar Choudhary who was granted relief by this Court and Mohan Chandra Jha whose case was considered in view of the order of this Court dated 7.12.2000 and similar relief was granted to him. 7. Under the said circumstances, this Court fails to understand why the authority did not consider the representation of the petitioner and pass similar order in his favour. It is not expected of the authorities of the State Government that they will compel each and every person affected by an illegal order to approach this Court before they would grant relief to them. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ application is allowed. The order dated 31.12.1998 (Annexure-2) by which the promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled with retrospective effect, is quashed. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ application is allowed. The order dated 31.12.1998 (Annexure-2) by which the promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled with retrospective effect, is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they are of the opinion that the promotion granted to the petitioner is illegal, then they will proceed in accordance with law after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to represent his case. 9. In view of the stand taken by the authorities in forcing the petitioner to approach this Court, they are directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000.00 (five thousand) to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.