Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1486 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Ramji Prasad

2011-07-19

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, T.MEENA KUMARI

body2011
Judgment (Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard learned counsel for the appellants, State of Bihar and private respondents. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2648 of 2005 (Ramji Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The writ petition came to be filed since the petitioner was aggrieved with the order dated 8.1.2004 by which promotion granted to them earlier on 1.3.2001 with effect from 1.4.1988 has been cancelled. The main contention in the writ petition was that the said order cancelling promotion was ex parte and without affording any opportunity or show cause to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge set aside the order cancelling promotion on the ground that the order cancelling promotion was without any notice to the petitioner and also that it was passed by the Director Administration and not by the Government. 3. With regard to other prayer of the petitioner that he may be promoted to Bihar Education Service Class-II, it was directed that he may file a representation which may De disposed off In accordance with law. It appears that just prior to the order being passed. The Government issued an order dated 3.10.2007 by which the effective date of promotion of the petitioner has been shifted to 1.1.1996. This gave rise to the appellants filing Civil Review No. 78 of 2008 (State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ramji Prasad). Learned Single judge did not interfere while hearing the Civil Review on the ground that the order of the State Government dated 3.10.2007 was not brought on record in the writ proceeding, and thus there was no error apparent on the face of the record and the review application was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order the appellant-State of Bihar has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the same was without considering the fact that juniors to the petitioner had been promoted from 1.1 .1996 and in that view of the matter, the decision of the State Government to shift the date of promotion of the petitioner-respondent ought not to have been interfered with. He further contends that representation filed by the petitioner-respondent is also under consideration. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the order under appeal needs some modification. He further contends that representation filed by the petitioner-respondent is also under consideration. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the order under appeal needs some modification. Accordingly, it is directed that the writ petitioner (respondent in the present appeal) may file a representation before the Respondent No. 1 with regard to re-fixation of the effective date of promotion and for payment of consequential benefits arising thereof. 5. It is stated at the Bar that the writ-petitioner has superannuated. It is clarified that the case of the petitioner shall not be rejected only on the ground that he has superannuated. If it is found that the order fixing his effective date of promotion needs any change then the same may be done and the actual monetary benefit be also given to him including re-fixation of retiral benefits, if any, without being influenced by any observation made either by the learned Single Judge or by this Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order upon the said respondent no. 1. 6. With the aforesaid observations/ directions this Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above by modifying the order under appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. "