Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 485 (PAT)

Madhusudan Prasad Deokuliar v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-08

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. I.A. No. 1670 of 2005 has been filed for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased petitioner. 2. I.A. is allowed. 3. Let the legal heirs indicated in paragraph 3 of the Interlocutory Application be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner. 4. Counsel for the parties are present. 5. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner has passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record and have been allowed to pursue the present writ application as well as the relief prayed therein. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2003 which has been passed by the Secretary of Bihar State Housing Board which is annexure-9 to the writ application. 7. By virtue of this decision, the Secretary of the Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of first as well as second time bound promotion to which he was entitled to, based on the recommendation made by the fourth Pay Revision Committee. 8. The contention of the petitioner was that since he had not been given any promotion or increase in pay during his period of service under the Housing Board, therefore, he ought to have been granted first time bound promotion after 10 years of service and the second after 15 years of service. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there were several charges of omission or commission brought against him. Since these allegations were pending, therefore, he was not entitled to promotion. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the stand taken by the respondents in this regard is misplaced on two counts:- (i) that the petitioner was never proceeded nor any inquiry or departmental proceeding was initiated or held against him. These were only allegations which never culminated on any count of finding or punishment recorded against him. The second contention is that the policy of the time bound promotion was recommended as well as accepted by the Government on the recommendation of the fourth pay revision committee. The provision was made specially for such employees who did not have avenues of promotion available despite long period of service which he has rendered in the concerned department or organization. The provision was made specially for such employees who did not have avenues of promotion available despite long period of service which he has rendered in the concerned department or organization. The time bound promotions were to be granted after completion of initially 10 years of service and thereafter, another 15 years of service. These promotions in no manner alter the position or responsibility which an employee was holding. This was only to alter his pay scale to a limited extent so that the employee did not hold a grievance of stagnating at a particular scale. The concept of pendency of proceedings etc. cannot be used for denying such time bound promotion to the employees. These are not regular promotions where the service recorded in the service record have to be looked into before granting such time bound promotions. In any view of the matter, the petitioner was never punished for the so-called charges nor any departmental proceeding was held against him, so the impugned order contained in Annexure-9, to that extent is not correct and the reason stated therein for denial of the time bound promotion to the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 11 This court, accordingly, quashes Annexure-9 with a direction to the respondents that they shall grant time bound promotion to the petitioner by looking at the length of service which he had rendered in the Housing Board on the post in question and refix his salary accordingly. 12. It is contended on behalf of the counsel for the respondent-Housing Board that the petitioner cannot be given second time bound promotion because by the time, the period of 15 years was completed, the policy had already come to an end, as the next recommendation of the fifth pay revision committee had come into effect. This is a matter of record which respondents will have to verify and satisfy themselves about the exact position. This court does not want to record any opinion on this point. 13. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed with a direction upon the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner by granting him first and the second time bound promotions if he is so entitled to. He shall be entitled to all the benefits due to the refixation including such emoluments by virtue of the said refixation of pay. 14. This writ application stands allowed with the above observations.