Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1423 (JHR)

Mathura Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing an order as contained in letter no. 82(A) dated 11.4.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2, affirming an order as contained in memo no. 762 dated 30.7.2007, whereby the claims of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits of the post of Office Superintendent and further consequential benefits as post retirement dues has been rejected. 3. According to the petitioner on 24.9.1960 he was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Welfare Officer, Chaibasa. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 24.2.1965 and in the year 1987 he was granted Senior Selection Grade . On 1.12.1992 petitioner was granted benefits of Super Time Scale. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he became eligible for the post of Office Superintendent, thereafter. In fact he was discharging his duty of the post of Office Superintendent form August 1994 till September, 1995 in the office of Respondent No. 3, as per Annexure-1. Petitioner was superannuated on 30.9.1995. Subsequently, another person namely Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma, senior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent and the petitioner, thereafter, made a representation before the respondent no. 3 on 28.7.2006 for consideration of his promotion to the post of Office Superintendent relying upon Rule 58 of Bihar Service Code. By the impugned order dated 30.7.2007 his representation was rejected by the respondent no. 3. Petitioner, thereafter, again preferred representation before the respondent no.2, Commissioner,( Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.4.2009(Annexure-5). According to the petitioner, he was entitled for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the period when he was asked to discharge his duties as Office Superintendent but the same was denied to him. It is further submitted that the said Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma has been granted promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said Nawal Kishore Sharma was senior to the petitioner and the petitioner was simply asked to discharge the duty of Office Superintendent from 18.8.1994 to 30.9.1995. It is further submitted that the said Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma has been granted promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said Nawal Kishore Sharma was senior to the petitioner and the petitioner was simply asked to discharge the duty of Office Superintendent from 18.8.1994 to 30.9.1995. However, after retirement of the petitioner, the said Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma, being senior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent due to the retirement of ex- Office Superintendent. It is further submitted that it is not the case that person junior to the petitioner has been promoted w.e.f. retrospective date in which case petitioner could have made justifiable claim of similar treatment. It is further submitted that petitioner remained silent for 11 years after retirement and according to the petitioner, he himself first made representation in July 2006 and subsequently in June 2007. Respondent no. 3 considered the matter and rejected the representation of the petitioner clearly stating that after the retirement of ex- Office Superintendent, Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma, being the senior most has been granted promotion on the basis of the meeting convened and petitioner had only remained in additional charge for the post of Office Superintendent for the said period and no regular promotion was granted to him. Moreover, claim of the petitioner has been made after 10 years . It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner was also considered by the respondent no.2 , who also rejected on the same ground . 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials including the impugned order. From the facts recorded herein above it is apparent that the petitioner was given additional charge of the post of Office Superintendent for the period from 18.8.1994 and he remained in the additional charge over the said post apart from his substantive post of U.D.C till he retired on 30.9.1995. Petitioner was not granted regular promotion to the post of Office Superintendent during his service or even after the retirement with retrospective effect. Petitioner was not granted regular promotion to the post of Office Superintendent during his service or even after the retirement with retrospective effect. The other person, Sri Nawal Kishore Sharma was senior to the petitioner and after retirement of the petitioner on constitution of the establishment committee on account of vacancy in the office of Office Superintendent, the said Nawal Kishore Sharma was promoted as Office Superintendent. Petitioner has raised his grievances after 10 years of his retirement in the month of June 2006 by making a representation before the respondents and respondents in their impugned order took into account this fact that petitioner was only given additional charge without giving regular promotion. The other persons, being senior to him was later granted regular promotion . This fact indicate that petitioner himself had not made any claim for regular promotion during his service period for the post of Office Superintendent and no person junior to him have been promoted. Moreover, petitioner has also filed representation after more than 10 years, therefore, his case could not have been considered. The petitioner after 14 years of retirement has filed this writ petition. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned orders do not suffers from any infirmity and writ petition is also barred by delay and latches. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.