Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 321 (PAT)

Ramjilal v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-12

BARIN GHOSH

body2007
Judgment 1. In the instant case, the petitioner was working initially as Electrician in the Workcharge Establishment of the State. By a letter dated 10th January, 1981, while the petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of Electrical Supervisor, a higher post than the post of Electrician, it was held out that he is being promoted to the post of Electrical Supervisor, Admittedly. there was no rules pertaininq to giving of promotion in the Workcharge Establishment. 2. Workcharge Establishment of the State is not a permanent Establishment. It is established for undertaking a particular work of the State. Once the work is over, the Establishment is closed. In order to complete the work, the time that may take may be one year or may be years. When such work continues for years and it transpires to the people in the helm of the affairs of such work that a person, who has been given a lower responsibility, may be suitable to discharge a higher responsibility, and is given such responsibility, though ostensibly by way of promotion but he is given such responsibility, in fact, to fulfill the requirement. If that is not so done, but a person discharging duties of lesser responsibility is given the duties of higher responsibility only for the purpose of making him richer, in the absence of rules authorizing grant of promotion, in terms of the Governments decision dated 16th July, 1994, the Government may touch upon such a worker of the Workcharge Establishment. Before, however, doing so, an appropriate enquiry is required to be made and appropriate justification is required to be given. 3. When, however, such a Workcharge employee has become part of the regular establishment, i.e., when the status of such workcharge employee stood converted into the status of a permanent employee of the State, nothing can be done to push back such an employee in the post carrying lesser responsibility in the Workcharge Establishment from the post carrying higher responsibility in the said establishment, inasmuch as while granting the permanent status to the employee in question, the State considered the status of the employee immediately prior thereto in the Workcharge Establishment and requirement of the state of such an employee in its permanent establishment. 4. 4. In the instant case, on 1st January, 1988 the petitioner was brought to the permanent establishment of the State with effect from that date as an Electrical Supervisor. There is no dispute that immediately prior to 1st January, 1988, the petitioner was an Electrical Supervisor working in the Workcharge Establishment. The State wanted such an Electrical Supervisor to be brought into the permanent establishment of the State. Inasmuch as the petitioner was holding the said post then he was brought to the permanent establishment of the State alongwith the post he was then holding, i.e. the post of Electrical Supervisor. 5. Subsequent thereto, treating the petitioner as an Electrician in the Workcharge Establishment and bringing such an Electrician in the permanent establishment of the State did never arise, as was sought to be done in the instant case, first by cancelling the engagement of the petitioner as Electrical Supervisor in the Workcharge Establishment by the impugned letter dated 27th November, 2004 and thereupon by bringing the petitioner to the permanent establishment as an Electrician with effect from 15th September, 2006. 6. In those circumstances, the impugned decision dated 27th November, 2004, being Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition, and at the same time the impugned decision dated 15th September, 2006, being Annexure-I to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, are quashed. 7. It appears that the petitioner was granted the first time bound promotion with effect from 10th October, 1991. This first time bound promotion was given to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner started discharging the duties of Electrical Supervisor with effect from 10th October, 1981. Inasmuch as it was thought that the petitioner was not entitled to discharge the duties of Electrical Supervisor with effect from 10th October, 1981, it was decided that the first time bound promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 10th October, 1991 was erroneous. 8. For the reasons already indicated above, the petitioner was found fit for discharging the duties of Electrical Supervisor on and from 10th October, 1981 and thereupon with effect from 1st January, 1988 he was treated as a permanent employee of the State obliged to discharge the duties of Electrical Supervisor and accordingly it is declared that there was no mistake in granting the first time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 10th October, 1991. Accordingly the impugned order dated 30th October, 2004 is quashed and the earlier promotion order dated 27.11.1991, Annexure-6, is restored. 9. In the event the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Assured Career Progression scheme, the respondents are requested to consider the claim of the petitioner on that account and to do the needful. 10. The writ petition is thus disposed of.