Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 466 (PAT)

Ram Briksh Das v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-01

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well as the counsel appearing for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BIADA) 2. Petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to give him Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.7.1983 i.e. the date on which juniors to the petitioner have been given promotion in the Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade. 3. Petitioner is claiming his seniority against Ramanuj Mishra, C.P. Sinha and Raghunandan Thakur as well as Binda Ram. Admitted facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Routine Clerk by the Managing Director, Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna on 26.2.1974. Ramanuj Mishra was appointed as Typist- cum-clerk on 1.3.1974. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant vide Memo no. 2252 dated 28.9.1974 Ramanuj Mishra was appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant on 1.10.1975 C.P. Sinha was appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant on 8.12.1975, and R.N. Thakur was appointed on 2.2.1976. Initially the petitioner claimed his seniority against Binda Ram but subsequently on filing counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4, stating that Binda Ram was Scheduled Caste and the petitioners claim of seniority cannot be compared with him. Petitioner filed supplementary affidavit stating that in general category the petitioner is senior most, C.P. Sinha, R.N. Thakur and Ramanuj Mishra have been given promotion in the junior selection grade vide order dated 26.1.1981 contained in Memo no. 26121 with effect from 1.7.1981 as such petitioner is also entitled for his promotion in the junior selection grade from the said date. 4. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit which have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 4 which are confusing. In the last affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 there is an admission so far the seniority of the petitioner compared to Ramanuj Mishra, C.P. Sinha and R.N. Thakur is concerned. While admitting petitioners seniority it has been stated that the matter is still undecided as dispute regarding seniority has been referred to the Bureau of Public Enterprises for deciding the seniority. 5. 3 and 4 there is an admission so far the seniority of the petitioner compared to Ramanuj Mishra, C.P. Sinha and R.N. Thakur is concerned. While admitting petitioners seniority it has been stated that the matter is still undecided as dispute regarding seniority has been referred to the Bureau of Public Enterprises for deciding the seniority. 5. It is disclosed from the pleadings that Ramanuj Mishra had filed C.W.J.C. No. 4058 of 1999 claiming senior selection grade on the ground that the juniors to him have already been given senior selection grade denying his claim. The writ application was disposed of giving liberty for filing representation. Such representation was considered by the Managing Director of the North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and it was held that Rambriksha Das (petitioner) being appointed on the post of Lower Division Assistant prior to Ramanuj Mishra is senior to him and his claim for being promoted in senior selection grade prior to the petitioner cannot be allowed. Ramanuj Mishra filed another writ application challenging the order passed by the Managing Director and again he was directed to file representation for consideration by the competent authority. Ramanuj Mishra filed his representation before the Director, North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur and entire matter has been referred to Bureau of Public Enterprises for consideration and settlement of dispute. 6. Counsel for the BIADA submits that awaiting the order passed by Bureau of Public Enterprises this matter be adjourned for two months and only after the decision of Bureau of Public Enterprises any order be passed. I do not find it is desirable. 7. Admittedly Annexure-19 shows that the pedtitioner is senior to C.P. Sinha and Ramanuj Mishra and R.N. Thakur. So far C.P. Sinha is concerned he was illegally . promoted and in order to cover up the wrong committed by the authorities the petitioner was denied his promotion. Only reason for not giving promotion to the petitioner in Junior Selection Grade was salary paid to C.P. Sinha could not have been realised in view of the order passed by High Court. 8. The petitioner has been able to make out a case so far his promotion in junior selection grade with effect from 1.7.1981 is concerned. 9. Accordingly this application is allowed. 8. The petitioner has been able to make out a case so far his promotion in junior selection grade with effect from 1.7.1981 is concerned. 9. Accordingly this application is allowed. The respondents authorities are directed to give promotion to the petitioner in Junior Selection Grade with effect from 1.7.1981 i.e. the date on which junior to the petitioner were given promotion. Promotion in Senior Selection Grade be allowed to petitioner with effect from 1.7.1983, i.e., the date juniors have been allowed promotion. Direction of this court must be complied within four weeks from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order and all consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled to on.account of giving such promotion must also be made within two months from the date passing the order of promotion.