Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Wakil Ahmad Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-03-14

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. 2. Mrs. Jaya Roy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner completed the age of 50 years on 4.11.1998. Thereafter, he was given second time bound promotion by the district Order No. 381 dated 23.2.1989 (Annexure-2) subject to approval, but the matter was kept pending. In the meantime, petitioner retired on 1.12.1996. Petitioner filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2605 of 2000 (R) for a direction on the respondents to regularize the said second time bound promotion and to pay retiral benefits on that basis. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.2.2001 by remitting the matter back to the concerned authority to determine as to whether the petitioner was exempted from the date he attained the age of 50 years in terms of Circular No. 2122 dated 1st April, 1986 read with letter dated 21st June, 1988. It was further observed as follows: It is needless to say that if the relaxation is allowed, the petitioner will be entitled for benefit of time bound promotion at least from the dated he attained the age of 50 years and consequential benefits thereof. 3. But by order dated 28.11.2001 (Annexure-7), petitioners request for exemption was rejected saying that granting exemption from the date of attaining the age of 50 years, in terms of the said order, will not be proper in view of clause 2 of Circular dated 15.5.1992, according to which exemption can be granted only from the date of issue of order of exemption. Petitioner then filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5134 of 2002, which was disposed of on 8.4.2003 remitting the matter back for reconsideration. 4. Then, petitioner was granted exemption by order dated 1.2.2005 (Annexure-9) with effect from the issuance of such order but the same was withdrawn by order dated 21.4.2005 (Annexure-11) on the ground that exemption can be granted from the date of application only. Thereafter, the impugned district order No. 854, dated 6.7.2005 was issued. It is inter alia said in the order that by District Order No. 353/2004, the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and the excess payment made was adjusted. 5. Thereafter, the impugned district order No. 854, dated 6.7.2005 was issued. It is inter alia said in the order that by District Order No. 353/2004, the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and the excess payment made was adjusted. 5. It was further said that though petitioner was granted exemption with effect from the date of his application dated 11.4.1996 but with effect from 1.1.1996 itself the system of second time bound promotion was stopped. Therefore, petitioners claim was rejected. 6. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 7. It appears that petitioner was granted second time bound promotion by order dated 23.2.1989, with effect from 1.4.1986, subject to approval. In CWJC No. 2605 of 2000 this Court said that if relaxation is allowed, petitioner will be entitled for benefit of time bound promotion at least from the date he attained the age of 50 years and consequential benefits thereof. No appeal was filed by the respondents against such order. Accordingly, it has to be held that petitioner is entitled to second time bound promotion with effect from 4.11.1988, when he attained the age of 50 years. If the dispute of grant of second time bound promotion on completion of 50 years of age remained pending for a long time, petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the same. 8. In the circumstances, petitioner is held entitled to exemption with effect from 4.11.1988, and consequential benefits thereof. The respondents will pass consequential orders as per the law, as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.