Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 108 (PAT)

Vindeshwar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2012-01-18

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) Navin Sinha, J.—The petitioner was appointed on 5.7.1956 as an Agriculture Inspector in the Bihar Agriculture Service (Agronomy). 2. On 19.11.1961 he was promoted to Bihar Agriculture Service, (Junior) Class-2, Category-1. On 27.4.1974 he was promoted to (Senior) Class-2 and superannuated from that post on 31.1.1993. 3. The original claim by the petitioner for grant of second time bound promotion after introduction of the scheme by the 4th Pay Revision report was with effect from 1.4.1981 reckoned from 5.7.1956, the date of his first appointment. 4. In view of the substantive promotion granted to him on 19.11.1961 to the Bihar Agriculture Service Class-2 (Junior) Category-1, and his superannuation from the same in (Senior) Class-2, counsel for the petitioner moulded the submission and contended that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for 2nd time bound promotion, reckoned from 19.11.1961. 5. Reliance was placed on the orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1326/93 (Chaudhary Kunj Bihari Roy), followed in C.W.J.C. No.4824/95 and C.W.J.C. No.5876/95. 6. Chaudhary Kunj Bihari Roy (supra) was appointed in the Bihar Agriculture Service, Category-1, had been granted Junior Selection Grade and superannuated from the same post. Directions to grant him 2nd time bound promotion came to be made considering that he never got any substantive promotion despite completion of 25 years of service. 7. The petitioner is acknowledged to have been granted Junior Selection Grade after rectification in the Bihar Agriculture Service Category-1, (Senior) Class-2 from 1.4.1985 and Senior Selection Grade from 1.4.1990. He was not granted any substantive promotion after 19.11.1961, alike Kunj Bihari Roy (supra) and two others. 8. The counter affidavit in accordance with the pleadings rightly denies his claim for 2nd time bound promotion reckoned from 5.7.1956. The respondents appear correct in their stand as the petitioner did get a substantive promotion within 25 years to the Bihar Agriculture Service (Junior) Class-2, Category-1 on 19.11.1961. 9. The Court therefore holds that the petitioner has made out a case to be considered for grant of 2nd time bound promotion before his superannuation, the period of 25 years to be calculated from 19.11.1961 bringing him in accord with the relief granted to Chaudhary Kunj Bihari Roy (supra) and the two others. 10. That leaves the question of grant of super time scale to him in the Bihar Agriculture Service (senior) Class-2, Category-1. 10. That leaves the question of grant of super time scale to him in the Bihar Agriculture Service (senior) Class-2, Category-1. The petitioner has annexed the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission dated 6.11.1996 holding him eligible for grant of super time scale from 31.1.1993. The respondents in their counter affidavit filed on 4.12.2002 have contended that he became eligible for grant of super time scale on 1.4.1993, but superannuated before the same on 31.1.1993. If the Commission had recommended him for super time scale on 6.11.1996 with effect from 31.1.1993, the respondents should have dealt the same in their counter affidavit filed in 2002 and either complied with it or put forth reasons cogent and germane why the recommendation made by the Commission was not accepted by them. No such stand has been taken by the respondents. The Court therefore holds that the petitioner is entitled to the super time scale in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission dated 6.11.1996 from 13.1.1993. 11. In conclusion, the writ petition has to be allowed. The respondents are directed to consider his grievance for grant of 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 19.11.1961 to bring it in accord with the judgment of Chaudhary Bihari Roy (supra) and two others. The petitioner is held entitled to the super time scale in the Bihar Agriculture Service (Senior) Class-2, Category-1 from 13.1.1993. 12. The petitioner is also held entitled to the retrospective consequential monetary benefits and the revision of his pension payment order along with arrears of pension. The order is required to be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. The writ application stands allowed.