Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1136 (JHR)

Niwas Choubey v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-20

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to treat the date of promotion of the petitioners retrospectively from 1994 and for giving monetary benefits to them besides payment of salary from the retrospective dates and fix pension in the revised pay scales. 2. The case of the petitioners is that though they joined as Sub Inspectors of Police in the year 1968, both of them were promoted to the post of Police Inspectors in the year 1981 and confirmed in the same post in 1988. In the year 1999, they were promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the gradation list of the police officers was prepared but in the matter of promotion, persons junior to the petitioners in the gradation list have been granted promotion retrospectively. It is informed that one Gangeshwar Sharma who was also aggrieved on account of refusal of grant of promotion from the retrospective date moved the apex court and in the judgment reported ( AIR 1977 SC 2051 ) a direction was given to the concerned State Government to consider the case of grant of promotion to the applicant Gangeshwar Sharma retrospectively from 1994. 4. Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, the concerned respondents granted promotion with effect from 1994 not only to Gangeshwar Sharma, but also to three other officers of the State rank. 5. The case of petitioners stands in the same position as Gangeshwar Sharma who had demanded promotion retrospectively from 1994, but the representations filed by the petitioners have not been disposed of either by the respondent-State of Jharkhand or the State of Bihar. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 stating therein that the matter of promotion of the petitioners rests with the State of Bihar and the service records of petitioners are also available with the concerned department of the State of Bihar. 7. No counter affidavit appears to have been filed either by the State of Bihar (respondent no. 2) or the remaining respondents, namely the State of Jharkhand. 8. From the pleadings of the petitioners, the grounds raised by the petitioners do not appear to have been specifically controverted by the respondent no. 7. No counter affidavit appears to have been filed either by the State of Bihar (respondent no. 2) or the remaining respondents, namely the State of Jharkhand. 8. From the pleadings of the petitioners, the grounds raised by the petitioners do not appear to have been specifically controverted by the respondent no. 5 In the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioners is identical to the case of Gangeshwar Sharma and a few other officers who have been granted promotion from 1994. If the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing, there is no reason why they should be denied the benefit as granted to others. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents no. 3 and 4 shall take a decision calling upon the service records from the State of Bihar and consider the grievance of the petitioners for their promotion retrospectively from 1994 in terms of the privilege granted to Gangeshwar Sharma and others in accordance with the regulation adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Annexure"-1) and effectively, communicate to the petitioners the decision taken on their representation. This exercise must be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observations, this application is disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the States of Bihar and Jharkhand.