Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1093 (PAT)

Hira Prasad Rai v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-03

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. The State Counsel is present to assist this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Helper in the Work Charge Establishment, Water Resources Department. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Fitter on 01.10.1962, and promoted again on 1st May, 1969 as Shed man, and thereafter promoted as Shed Incharge on 1st July, 1973. By a decision dated 21.02.1980, the post of Shed Incharge was converted as Supervisor. The petitioner was regularized on the said post as Supervisor on 20.08.1981. The State Government reconsidered the decision to convert the post of Shed Incharge to Supervisor by letter no.1091 dated 01.04.1983. Even before the reconsideration of the Government decision, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Shed Incharge on 07.03.1983. The crux of the matter lies in the fact, that despite the State Governments decision to abolish the post of Supervisor, the petitioner was granted promotion with effect from 01.01.1986 vide letter no.6024/81 dated 31.01.1986 contained in Annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed, along with eight other persons. 3. By the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 dated 06.01.1993, it is stated that 9 posts of Shed Incharge have been regularized whereas the tenth post of Supervisor has been abolished. In lieu of the decision taken by Annexure-3, the petitioner was asked to return Rs.11,373.90 which he was paid in between the period 1986 till the date of passing the order. 4. Annexure-e would reveal that the petitioner along with eight others had been granted promotion on the post of Supervisor on 31.01.1986. Nine persons had been regularized on this post, as it appears that a question was raised in the Assembly with regard to their removal from the post as per Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. It would be proper to quote the entire paragraph. 5. That with regard to the averments made in paragraphs 9 to 16 of the petition under reply, the deponent states that under letter No.1661 dated 20.8.81 the post of 10 Supervisors grade II were sanctioned in the Mechanical Division No.2, Birpur by the State Government and the Respondent No.9 and 11 to 15 were regularized against the said post of Supervisor grade II. Under letter No.3307 dated 14.5.85 and letter No.5324 dated 25.7.85 the State Government directed that the Supervisor Grade II referred to the letter no.1661 dated 20.8.81 so far it relates to the Mechanical Division No.2 be read as Supervisor Grade III and in compliance to the letter no.3307 dated 14.5.85 and letter no.5324 dated 25.7.85 the respondent no.9 and 11 to 15 began to draw salary of Supervisor Grade III and later in difference to the wishes of the Petition Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly the Chief Engineer issued direction for making payment of salary to Respondent Nos.9 and 11 to 15 in the scale of Supervisor grade II under letter No.1838 dated 9.10.91 and as such Respondent Nos.9, 11 to 15 in compliance to the said direction are drawing the salary of Supervisor grade II. So far respondent no.10 is concerned, he was regularized as Supervisor grade II against the sanctioned post of Mechanical Division No.1, Kosi Project, Birpur under letter No.2955 dated 5.9.81. It may be stated here that respondent Nos.9 and 10 have been promoted to the post of Supervisor grade I under letter No.1230 dated 25.7.89 and letter no.249 dated 15.3.90 respectively.5. It is apparent that 9 persons have been promoted to work on the post of Supervisor although no such post exist and it was abolished by the State Government merely because of the wishes of the Petition Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. This Court does not think that it is proper that the nine persons should be given the benefit of regularization of their services on the post of Supervisor, on the basis of the wishes of the Petition Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and the petitioner should be discriminated on the ground that his name was not included by the Petition Committee. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the decision of the State Government is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should be given the same benefit as nine other persons who were promoted along with him vide Annexure-E. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the decision of the State Government is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should be given the same benefit as nine other persons who were promoted along with him vide Annexure-E. 7. I, therefore, quash that part of the order contained in Annexure-3 by which there is a decision to abolish the tenth post of Supervisor and Annexure 4 by which recovery has been made against the petitioner with respect to the payment made to the petitioner for the period 1986 till the date of the order. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.