Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 896 (JHR)

Puran Chandra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-15

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2010, the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared in Court in person today and have filed a supplementary show cause reply. 2. It is contended in the supplementary show cause reply that the compliance of the directions as contained in the impugned order of this Court passed in the writ application, has been duly made in as much as, the cases of the individual petitioners for their promotion was duly considered and in view of the fact that though the names of the petitioners do transpire in the panel list of 26.05.1988 from 31.05.1988, but the persons above them in seniority in the panel could be absorbed against the then existing vacancies and after filling up of all the vacancies, there was no vacancy left for accommodating the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties informs that as per the directions contained in the impugned order, the respondent authorities had reconsidered the petitioners' claim and thereafter, passed a reasoned order. This, according to the learned Counsel, is in full compliance with the directions contained in the impugned order of this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would argue that the purported compliance is in fact no compliance at all. Rather, the respondents have intentionally manipulated matters in such a manner as to deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioners. This, despite the fact that a clear direction was given to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for their promotion from the same panel. Learned Counsel adds that at the time when the issues involved in the writ application were agitated and decided by this Court, the respondents did not raise any such issue regarding seniority in the panel list. In fact while approving the panel list, this Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for their promotion, if their names do transpire in the panel list. The petitioners were entitled therefore for their promotion against the vacancies which were existing at that time irrespective of the fact that their names transpire above or below the persons who have already been promoted against the existing vacancies. The petitioners were entitled therefore for their promotion against the vacancies which were existing at that time irrespective of the fact that their names transpire above or below the persons who have already been promoted against the existing vacancies. Learned Counsel submits further that though the respondents have granted promotions to the petitioners, but such promotions have been granted to them from a subsequent date of 1992 albeit from the same panel, although the petitioners were entitled for their promotion from the date when others were granted similar promotions. 5. From the rival submissions it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the date of promotion given to them. Whereas the petitioners contend that the date of their promotion should be reckoned from the same date when others were granted similar promotions, the contention of the respondents as it further appears from the submissions of the counsel for the respondents is that the petitioners may not be entitled for promotion from the date when others were given promotions since at that time no vacancies existed for the petitioners. 6. Be that as it may, I find from the show cause reply that directions as contained in the impugned order of this Court have been complied with by the respondents and therefore there is no reason to retain this contempt application on Board any further. Accordingly, this contempt application is dropped. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the respondents/Opposite Parties for a reconsideration as to whether the date of promotion can be shifted notionally back to the dates when vacancies arose subsequently, for the purpose of future service benefit of the petitioners. 7. The personal appearance of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 are hereby dispensed with.