Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2184 (PAT)

Dharamdeo Das v. Bihar State Electricity

2011-10-20

T.MEENA KUMARI, VIKASH JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT T. MEENA KUMARI , J.:–The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. no.9611 of 2005 where question has been raised to Annexure-2 with regard to inaction of the official respondents for not extending the benefit as per Annexure-2 which is a resolution of the Government regarding giving time bound promotion to the appellant, being a scheduled caste candidate, within a period of two years. 2. It has been contended before us that the appellant was promoted to the post of Under Secretary and is entitled to the post of Joint Secretary as per the promotional scheme ‘Kalawadhi’ which is a time bound promotion within a period of two years. It has further been contended that the appellant was holding the post of Under Secretary from the date of his promotion, i.e., 29.7.1995 and is entitled to his next promotion, i.e., the post of Joint Secretary within a period of two years. However, such benefit is not extended to him and he has questioned before this Court regarding the inaction of not giving him promotion by filing a writ petition. The Court has directed him to file a representation before the Board to consider the same. The representation has been considered by the Board vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition being Memo no.183 dated 9.6.2005 wherein claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground, as stated in paragraph-4, which reads as follows :– <span class="Hfont"> ^^4. The Court has directed him to file a representation before the Board to consider the same. The representation has been considered by the Board vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition being Memo no.183 dated 9.6.2005 wherein claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground, as stated in paragraph-4, which reads as follows :– <span class="Hfont"> ^^4. Jh njl ds vkosnu ls Li"V gS fd mUgsa cksMZ dh foxr 29 o"kkZs dh lsok esa 5 izksUufr;k¡ iznku dh x;h gS bl izdkj muds lkFk cksMZ esa U;k; fd;k gS mYys[kuh; gS fd cksMZ ds dk;kZy; vkns'k lañ 3231 fnukad 5.9.83 ds vkyksd esa la;qDr lfpo dk N% in cksdMZ esa Lohd`r gS mDr N% inksa esa nks in cksMZ eq[;ky; ds iz'kklfud laoxZ ds inkfèkdkfj;k¡ ds fy, fuèkkZfjr gS fnukad 2.1.04 ds izHkko ls >kj[kaM jkT; foèkqr cksMZ ds xBu ds mijkar cksMZ ds dfeZ;ksa ds laoxZ foHkkx gsrq xfBr JhokLro lfefr dh vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa cksMZ eq[;ky; ds iz'kklfud laoxZ dk Hkh iquZxBu fd;k x;k gSA bl vkyksd esa lEizfr la;qDr lfpo dk ek=k rhu in gh fcgkj jkT; fcèkqr cksMZ ds fy, fuèkkZfjr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ls fefuLVsfj;y dSMj ds inkfèkdkfj;ksa ds fy, ek=k ,d gh in d.kZfdr gSA bl izdkj mDr ,d in ds fo:¼ vkj{k.k ds izkoèkkuksa ds rgr nkok U;klaxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA** 3. Learned single Judge having taken note of paragraph-4 of Annexure-3 has observed that there is no violation of Annexure-2. Accordingly, this Court did not want to interfere with the writ petition and it is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended before us that reasonings given in Annexure-3 are not as per the resolution no.IV-Misc.-9072/91-1053/EB dated 26.12.1991. As per the resolution a person is entitled to one time bound promotion within a period of two years during his service period from the post he is holding. It has been further contended that from the post of Under Secretary he should be promoted to the post of Joint Secretary as per prescribed period reduced to one year for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Learned counsel has also argued that appellant has been already granted promotion prior to the promotion to the post of Under Secretary. The appellant is entitled to the post and the same has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel has also argued that appellant has been already granted promotion prior to the promotion to the post of Under Secretary. The appellant is entitled to the post and the same has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 5. We have got occasion to go through the writ petition and Annexures-2 and 3 which are resolution and rejection order passed by the Board. Reasoning given by the Board at para-4 of the order dated 9.6.2005 is that appellant had already been given five promotions and he cannot be offered promotion as per the present resolution. But it is a fact that the Resolution dated 9.6.2005 could not be the reason for the rejection of the promotion as it does not follow the rule to the Scheme, i.e., Kalawadhi, as contained in Resolution Dated 26.12.1999. 6. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant has to be considered with promotion to the post of Joint Secretary and all the benefits accrued to such post must be paid to him with retrospective effect as he has already retired on 31.8.2010. 7. In the result, the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.10.2007 is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.