Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 415 (PAT)

Jagdish Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-18

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The manner in which the State appears to be contesting the claims of the petitioner in cases before this Court without having any defence, merely for having the luxury and pleasure of opposing the relief at the tax payers expense disturbs this Court. 3. The deponent of the counter affidavit is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Road Construction. He states in his counter affidavit that he has gone through the statements made in the writ petition and understood the same. 4. The petitioner makes a grievance of non-consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, even while his juniors in the gradation list of Executive Engineer have been promoted as such. He has now superannuated on 30.11.2002. It is his specific case in the writ application, that there were never any departmental proceedings against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never been subjected to any proceedings or prosecution, at any stage of his career and that, therefore, justifiably after superannuation his entire retiral dues as an Executive Engineer have been released to him. He was only issued a show-cause notice in 1996, to which he had replied. 6. The counter affidavit states, that the case of the petitioner was considered by the departmental promotion committee in its meeting held on 23.12.2000, when he was found unfit and his case was kept pending. From Annexure-A, the proceedings of the departmental promotion committee, it is submitted that the reason was pendency of "some allegations". The counter affidavit acknowledges that his juniors have been promoted. 7. The Officials of the State have chosen not to deny the specific assertion of the petitioner, that he was never subjected to any proceedings or prosecution. That position stands admitted. There is no other defence that the State has for denial of the promotion. Yet it seeks to oppose the writ application. Mere allegations are not sufficient by themselves. The allegations have to fructify into something. If they do not fructify, the law shall presume that the allegations were frivolous themselves. This Court would have expected that the State authorities would have had the grace to consider the case of the petitioner. The primary duty of the State is to act fairly, reasonably and responsibly. 8. The allegations have to fructify into something. If they do not fructify, the law shall presume that the allegations were frivolous themselves. This Court would have expected that the State authorities would have had the grace to consider the case of the petitioner. The primary duty of the State is to act fairly, reasonably and responsibly. 8. The respondents are directed to consider the,case of the petitioner and grant him promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from the date that his juniors have been so promoted. The petitioner is held entitled to the full salary to the post of Superintending Engineer from such date, less what may have paid to him in the capacity of Executive Engineer. The respondents are further directed to re-fix his pension on the basis of last pay drawn as a Superintending Engineer. 9. Let the arrears of salary for the post of Superintending Engineer and the arrears of the retiral benefits after re-fixation be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 10. The arrears of salary shall carry interest @ 4% from the date of promotion granted to the juniors till 30.10.2002 the date of institution of the writ application. 11. The application stands disposed.