Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 786 (JHR)

Bhukhar Mahto v. Steel Authority of India Limited

2008-07-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion to Grade-P5 with effect from 1998 and' also to grant him promotion to Grade-P6 with effect from 2002 with all monetary benefits thereon. 3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is employed as a Technician (staff no. 435786) in the Bokaro Steel Plant. On account of some mishap in which the daughter-in-law of the petitioner suffered death on 5.5.1994 due to burn injuries, a case was registered against him and other members of his family for certain criminal offences and the petitioner was taken into custody. However, he was released on bail in due course in the aforesaid case. During the period the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the case, he could not join his duties. Consequently, he was charge-sheeted for his absence from services vide notice dated 21.6.1994. Pending departmental enquiry, the petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 27.12.1994 with retrospective effect from 6.5.1994. Challenging the order of his suspension, the petitioner filed the writ petition being CWJC No. 3336 of 1998R before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 10.8.1999 directed the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry within four months failing which the order of suspension shall stand revoked. Subsequently, by order dated 29.11.1999, order of petitioner's suspension was revoked by the competent authority and the petitioner was allowed to join his service on 30.11.1999. 4. The petitioner had initially joined service as a Khalasi in the year 1979 and was later on promoted to Grade-P3 and subsequently in P4 in the year 1994. Thereafter two promotions to Grade-P5 and P6 became due to him in the year 1998 and 2002 respectively. But despite the fact that the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceedings and during the pendency of the proceedings, his suspension order was recalled and he was allowed to resume his service, his promotion has not been given to him. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein at para 9 it has been stated that since the criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner, his case of notional promotion has not been considered. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein at para 9 it has been stated that since the criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner, his case of notional promotion has not been considered. It is further stated that after the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charges by the court of law, the petitioner would lJe paid his subsistence allowance and full salary. 6. In para 11 of the counter affidavit, it has been acknowledged that as soon as the petitioner is acquitted of the criminal charge, his case for promotion will be considered. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents explains that the counter affidavit was filed at the time when the criminal proceeding was still pending and as it appears that it was during the pendency of this writ petition that the criminal proceeding concluded and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Under such circumstances, as indicated in para 11 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner's case for his promotion would be considered. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the contesting respondents mentioning his claim and the ground thereof, and within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, the respondent no. 3 shall dispose of the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned and appropriate order. 9. With the above observation, this application is disposed of.