Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 227 (PAT)

Rameshwar Prasad Ray v. State of Bihar

2012-02-07

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. No one appears on behalf of the State when this case was called on 21.12.2011 but the counsel for the petitioner was present. Even today no one is representing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 but learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. It appears from the record that the petitioner is making prayer for issuing a direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Statistical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as recommended by the Establishment Committee. 3. The fact of this case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Typist Class-II in the office of North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority vide letter No. 505 dated 30.3.1977 and accordingly he joined to the said post on 4.4.1997. By the policy decision Class I and Class II were merged and the scale of pay of petitioner was raised to Rs. 297-460/- with effect from 1.3.1997. The petitioner was promoted to the Junior Selection Grade Typist in the pay scale of Rs. 680-965/- on 18.8.1982. 4. He further stated that in the year 1980 the post of Statistical Assistant fell vacant consequent upon the promotion of Sri Bimal Kishore Mishra who was holding that post as the petitioner was senior most filed a representation to the authority for being promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 340-570/- with effect from 1980. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that at the relevant time the petitioner was holding all requisite qualification and accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner stating the fact that the case of the petitioner for promotion can be considered for the post of Statistical Assistant. When the petitioner was not giving the relief of promotion, he filed the representation dated 02.11.1987 vide Annexure-2. 6. It appears from the record that the Managing Director wanted a guideline with regard to the promotion of an employee to the scale of Rs.1640-2900/- from Deputy Director, Public Bureau of Enterprises informed that he was himself a competent authority could take decision of concerning the matter. When the petitioner could not get a favourable result, he filed the present writ application and claimed for promotion to the aforesaid post. When the petitioner could not get a favourable result, he filed the present writ application and claimed for promotion to the aforesaid post. Though there is none to represent the Corporation but the Corporation has filed counter affidavit. 7. It appears from the counter affidavit that the Board of Director of the Corporation has taken policy decision about merger of the post of Statistical Assistant, System Assistant, Reception Assistant, Accountant and Cashier and has been renamed as Assistant and as such it appears from the counter affidavit that no post of Statistical Assistant is available in the Corporation. 8. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that when there was a merger of the post it was required for the Corporation to create a parallel post so that the petitioner or similarly situated employees could have been promoted to the next higher grade. As the person entered into the service requires some incentive during the service period. As the post is not available and this Court cannot give any direction to the Corporation to create a parallel post and to promote the petitioner. But the petitioner submits that he would file a fresh representation and the same may be considered by the authority concerned and be disposed of its own merit. 9. According to the submission of the petitioner and nature of the dispute involved, this Court cannot give any direction to create a post and to promote the petitioner on that post. However the petitioner is directed to file a representation making a grievance before the concerned authority. 10. It is expected that the authority concerned will examine his case in accordance with law and disposed of the same preferably, within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.