Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 558 (PAT)

Triveni Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-03-28

NAVIN SINHA

body2008
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner in this writ application prays for the relief of grant of senior selection grade in the Bihar Administrative Service from the date that his juniors have been so granted. He has superannuated on 31.1.1998. He came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 5917 of 1996 with the claim for regular promotion to the junior selection grade and thereafter to the senior selection grade. 3. On 10.1.1998 disposing his writ application with a direction to file a representation this Court noticed the submission of the respondents that promotion was not given to him since certain proceedings were pending against him. Noticing the factual controversy of allegations and counter allegations the writ court declined to pass any positive orders granting him the liberty to file a representation. 4. It is now not in controversy that there have been no proceedings at any time against the petitioner much less any orders of punishment as an impediment in the grant of junior selection grade or senior selection grade. 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it transpires that by Notification No. 6045 dated 5.6.1998 the petitioner has been granted junior selection grade with effect from 9.6.1992. The ground to deny him senior selection grade now is that promotion to the senior selection grade after 1.1.1996 were to be made on the basis of need based post only. Since the petitioner had earlier been denied consideration for junior selection grade the question of considering him for promotion to the senior selection grade against the need based post simply did not arise. His juniors against whom there was nothing, in the meantime were considered for promotion against the need based post and in this manner stole a march over him. By the time that the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the senior selection grade after his promotion to the junior selection grade he had retired. Since he had retired the question of any promotion to him on a need based post which necessarily postulates joining on the post cannot be given to him. By efflux of time his claim has become irrelevant. 6. Since he had retired the question of any promotion to him on a need based post which necessarily postulates joining on the post cannot be given to him. By efflux of time his claim has become irrelevant. 6. The respondents in Para 6 of their supplementary counter affidavit have also stated that later on the posts have been identified vide Memo No. 2632 dated 31.3.1999 and the promotion is being granted now with effect from the date of promotion of juniors provided the promotion to the juniors have been granted prior to retirement of the petitioner. 7. In this entire controversy what now transpires is that the petitioner came to this Court in 1996 pressing his claim for grant of promotion to the junior selection grade and senior selection grade. Had he been considered timely for the same the consequence for him would have been very different and his case would then have been considered in accordance with law on the need based post. He was denied such consideration on the plea of certain allegations/proceedings which has now turned out to be unfounded. If that be so, the petitioner has clearly been subjected to arbitrariness and denied relief wrongfully to which he was otherwise entitled for consideration. 8. The petitioner has now retired. He has been granted junior selection grade. It is now apparent that he was wrongly denied consideration for senior selection grade. The fact that he may have retired does not persuade this Court to accept the argument of the respondents to hold that the petitioner cannot lay claim for notional promotion to the need based post in the selection grade on account of his retirement. If that were to be so it was clearly be giving an advantage to the respondents for their own lapse and penalise the petitioner for their lapses. That would be contrary to justice. 9. This Court therefore directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of senior selection grade consequent to the grant of junior selection grade to him notionally. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential monetary benefits also. The respondents after granting such notional seniority and monetary benefits are also directed to recalculate and revise his pension accordingly and pay him his dues. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential monetary benefits also. The respondents after granting such notional seniority and monetary benefits are also directed to recalculate and revise his pension accordingly and pay him his dues. Let this whole exercise be completed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this judgment.