Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 591 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Bindeshwari Singh

2007-03-22

J.N.BHATT, SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2007
Judgment J.N.BHATT, J. 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court the challenge is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.12.2004 passed in CWJC No. 9184 of 2001, whereby and whereunder by allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed respondent no.3, that after getting the dues of the original petitioner, respondent no.1 herein, calculated, he shall direct for payment of the amounts due to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have examined the factual matrix. We have, also, examined the merits of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. The respondent original writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition contending that he has not been given the increment, as well as, time bound promotion as per the Government policy and the rules. The original writ petitioner-respondent was initially, working in the State Government as Touring Veterinary Officer, Kalyanpur, Samastipur district and thereafter, he was transferred from that place to other places. He, also challenged the transfer order, which was quashed and grievance regarding non-payment of salary was, also, raised and direction was given to the respondent-Accountant General to expedite the matter relating to the payment of salary to the petitioner, in CWJC No. 1257 of 1986, which was disposed of, on 14.3.1986. The learned counsel for the State-appellant has raised only contention before us to the effect that the impugned order is not legal and justified as the original writ petitioner was not entitled to claim increment and time bound promotion benefits due to non-passing of the departmental examination, required to be passed for such benefit under the rules. This contention is countenanced by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent herein. 4. The learned Single Judge upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, has in clear terms observed in the impugned judgment that in view of material brought to the notice of the court by placing it as Annexure 2 in the supplementary affidavit filed on 7.9.2002 which is a report of the Central Examination. Committee, Bihar, it appears that the petitioner has cleared the departmental examination in the year 2001 itself. Committee, Bihar, it appears that the petitioner has cleared the departmental examination in the year 2001 itself. His name is shown at serial no.4 of the result of the examination in 1999, held between 6.6.2000 to 9.6.2000 by Central Examination Committee, Bihar. We have also perused the result and we are satisfied that the aforesaid report shows that result which indicates that the petitioner has cleared the examination with books and without books. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the rule which says that departmental examination is required to be passed for the purpose of confirmation in service. No specific rule has been shown to show that even for the purpose of granting time bound promotion, which has been introduced with the concept to remove the frustration among the employees of the Government, departmental examination is required to be cleared. 6. After having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are convinced that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. We find no infirmity therein. Therefore, we affirm and confirm the same while dismissing this Letters Patent Appeal against that judgment at the threshold, after having heard both the parties. No costs.