Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1497 (PAT)

Nageshwar Maharaj v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-12

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Vide order dated 22.5.2000 contained in Annexure-2 the then Managing Director granted promotion to the petitioner from the post of Senior Grade Assistant to Administrative Officer. The pay scale granted to the petitioner was Rs. 2000- 3800. The grievances of the petitioner is that this order of promotion has not gotten him any benefit monetarily. Despite the above order the respondents have not honoured the promotion order as such. On an earlier occasion when the petitioner moved this High Court a winding up petition was pending so the Court did not grant relief but the same has now been dismissed may be for a technical reason. As of today no appeal against the order has been filed. 3. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed. The basic stand of the State is that the Corporation is an independent entity and these are issues which ought to be decided by them at their own level. 4. The submission of the Corporation is that they are a defunct organisation and they do not have any resource available to meet such obligation. They expressed their helplessness in the matter because of the present fund position. They also indicate that the promotion order issued against the petitioner was also forwarded for approval to the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Department of Industries. Subsequently on 5.2.2002 the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar has rejected the promotion order. With this development the Corporation is not bound to grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioner. 5. Petitioner has filed an interlocutory application as well as a supplementary affidavit in which he has brought the order of the Secretary dated 5.2.2002 as Annexure-6. The interlocutory application has been filed to quash this order as well now because there was no communication of this fact to the petitioner all along. The order has been also produced by the respondent-State as Annexure-A to their counter affidavit. Since this decision of the Secretary has implications in the present writ application I.A. No. 5007 of 2007 of the petitioner is hereby allowed. 6. The order has been also produced by the respondent-State as Annexure-A to their counter affidavit. Since this decision of the Secretary has implications in the present writ application I.A. No. 5007 of 2007 of the petitioner is hereby allowed. 6. The question which-arises for consideration now is whether the order dated 5.2.2002 can come in the way of the promotion which was granted to the petitioner and what is the authority of the Secretary in this regard to interfere in matters relating to day-to-day administration of the Corporation. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the State and which has already been taken note of earlier they do talk in terms of certain autonomy which has been granted to these Public Sector Undertakings. They also reiterate that these are issues and matters which is based decided at the level of the Corporation. There is no effort whatsoever to defend the action of the Secretary and even explain the circumstances under which the Secretary had authority to accept or not accept a promotion order granted to an employee of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the State relies on a Full Bench decision in the case of Manikant Pathak V/s. State of Bihar, 1997(1) PLJR 664 (F.B.). He specially relies on paragraph 19 of the decision. This Court fails to understand as to how this decision helps the State in the matter. The Full Bench decision has categorically held that the liability to pay salary and other benefits of an employee is on the Corporation/undertaking concerned and petitioners cannot maintain their claim against the State of Bihar. In other words if there are no financial liability of the State as per the Full Bench decision then where is the occasion for the Secretary, Department of Industries to annul the promotion order which has been granted to an employee of the Corporation. In this view of the matter the order issued by the Secretary as contained in Annexure-6 dated 5.2.2002 is hereby quashed. 7. In this view of the matter the order issued by the Secretary as contained in Annexure-6 dated 5.2.2002 is hereby quashed. 7. In so far as the stand taken by the Corporation is concerned with regard to their inability to meet the obligation, this Court would only like to remind the Corporation of a recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Singh V/s. Administrator, BISCOMAUN, 2006(3) PLJR (SC)70, which categorically held that that demand of an employee upon an employer with regard to his legitimate dues is one issue and the absence of resources is yet another issue. Absenceof resources will not come in the way of the Court to grant a relief in favour of an employee. 8. In the above factual and legal situation, this Court comes to a considered opinion that promotion order which was passed in favour of the petitioner dated 22.5.2002 has to be honoured by the respondent-Corporation. 9. This writ application is accordingly allowed with a direction upon the respondent-Corporation to take steps for payment of benefits to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-2 to the writ application.