Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 62 (JHR)

Gupteshwar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-11

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an issuance of an appropriate writ, directing upon the respondents to issue a notification for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer, as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee made on 31.7.2001 (Annexure- 4), from the date when juniors to the petitioner were promoted and to grant the amount of consequential benefits of such promotion. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The petitioner's claim for promotion from the date when he became eligible, is based on the ground that upon submission of his confidential report when the petitioner's case was considered, the Departmental Promotion Committee, vide letter dated 31.10.2001, had recommended the petitioner's case for promotion. Subsequently, vide letter dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure-6), the Commissioner had also forwarded the confidential report of the petitioner to the authority concerned. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the Gradation List was prepared and the process for granting promotion was initiated almost eight years ago, yet the concerned authorities of the respondents have not granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer, although persons junior to the petitioner had obtained such benefit, with retrospective effect from 9.10.2000. 5. As it appears from the counter affidavit of the respondents and the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents, the State Government has taken positive steps to promote the eligible Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoon goes to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer (Revenue), but the process has been held up, on account of the fact that the Annual Confidential Reports and update clearance certificates of a few Circle Inspectors are still awaited from the concerned Deputy Commissioners and the State Vigilance Department. 6. As it appears from the counter affidavit, the petitioner's claim that his name had already recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and that the Commissioner has already submitted Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner, has not been denied. As such, there can be no reason as to why the petitioner should be denied and deprived of the benefits of promotion, which he has legitimately and genuinely earned long ago. 7. As such, there can be no reason as to why the petitioner should be denied and deprived of the benefits of promotion, which he has legitimately and genuinely earned long ago. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case, alongwith all other similarly situated employees, for their promotion to the post of Assistant Settlement Officers, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondents would also consider the appropriate date from which such promotion should be given to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits of such promotion. 8. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.