Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 338 (PAT)

Shyam Bali Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-02-27

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is serving as Revenue Karmchari in Punpun Block of Patna District. He filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, to direct the State-respondents to grant him the benefit of Military Service which he rendered earlier to his appointment as Revenue Karmchari with effect from 23.2.1980 in the light of the resolution of the Personnel Department of the Government bearing no. 15784P dated 26.8.1972, Annexure-2 which, inter alia, require the State Government to grant the benefit of Military Service to a Government employee who earlier served in the Army. In this connection petitioner filed representation dated 01.10.2003, 27.04.2005 which is addressed to Collector, Patna and is contained in Annexure-5, 6 to this application. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if he is allowed the benefit of Military Service, he shall stand placed above one Moti Lal Singh in the seniority list of the Revenue Karmchari. The authorities kept the representation of the petitioner dated 01.10.2003 pending and did not include him at the appropriate place in the seniority list of the Karmchari giving him the benefit of the Military Service as per the 1972 Circular of the Government and promoted the said Moti Lal Singh on the higher post of Kanoongo within the quota of 50% meant for the Karmcharies as per 2004 Rules. When such illegality was committed by the authorities, subsequent representation dated 27.4.2005, Annexure-6 was filed by the petitioner which was also kept pending forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition on 20.12.2005. 3. By filing the counter affidavit State-respondents have placed on record the judgment of the High Court dated 28.10.2010, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, passed in the case of Bihar Raijya Bhoomi Sudhar Karamchari Sangh Vs. 3. By filing the counter affidavit State-respondents have placed on record the judgment of the High Court dated 28.10.2010, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, passed in the case of Bihar Raijya Bhoomi Sudhar Karamchari Sangh Vs. The State of Bihar bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4301 of 2010 and submitted that as petitioner was appointed as Revenue Karmchari on 23.2.1980 he should have filed representation for granting him the benefit of Military Service and including him at the appropriate place in the seniority list within a reasonable time of entry in service but the petitioner chose to sleep over his rights and submitted representation dated 01.10.2003 belatedly and soon thereafter 2004 Rules were framed which was also repealed later by 2010 Rules reducing the quota for promotion of Karmchari from 50 to 25% and as petitioner was not vigilant about his placement at the appropriate place in the seniority list within reasonable time of his entry in service this Court may not pass any positive order in his favour. 4. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission, which has absolutely no basis as petitioner having entered the Revenue Service as Karmchari on 23.2.1980 was expecting the authorities to grant him the seniority in the light of Government resolution dated 26.8.1972 but when the authorities of the Government did not discharge their duties in the light of the resolution of the Government, petitioner submitted representation dated 01.10.2003 requesting the authorities to grant him the benefit of Military Service which was not considered and Moti Lal Singh was allowed promotion on the post of Kanoongo. After Moti Lal Singh earned the promotion and petitioner was deprived of such benefit, he again represented under representation dated 27.4.2005 which was also not considered and petitioner had no option but to file this writ petition on 20.12.2005. In the counter affidavit the State-respondents have not disputed the fact that petitioner had earlier served the Indian Army and was entitled for being considered for seniority taking into account the service rendered in the Army as per the resolution of the Government dated 26.8.1972. The authorities have also not disputed that the date on which Moti Lal Singh was promoted as Kanoongo, the quota fixed for promotion of Karmchari on the post of Kanoongo was 50%. The authorities have also not disputed that the date on which Moti Lal Singh was promoted as Kanoongo, the quota fixed for promotion of Karmchari on the post of Kanoongo was 50%. In the counter affidavit authorities have also not disputed that if petitioner is granted the benefit of Military Service, he shall not rank senior to aforesaid Moti Lal Singh. On all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter, the counter affidavit filed by the State is conveniently silent to suit its case. Such approach of the authorities in not dealing with the relevant issues and placing on record a judgment dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) which hardly considered the submissions raised in this petition is misconceived. In the said judgment the High Court held that in service matters relating to promotion it is vital that a person who has a grievance with regard to promotion and seniority moves expeditiously for the protection of his own rights and interest. Further the judgment holds that promotion is not a vested right. Both the aforesaid questions of law laid down by the Court in the judgment has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case, as such, reliance placed by the authorities on the aforesaid judgment in the present case is nothing but misconceived. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and having considered the submissions raised by the authorities, I direct the State-respondents to first consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.10.2003, 27.04.2005, Annexure-5, 6 and to determine his seniority in the light of circular of the State Government dated 26.8.1972 granting him the benefit of Military Service, and if he ranks senior to aforesaid Moti Lal Singh, be considered for promotion as Kanoongo with effect from the date Motilal Singh has been granted such promotion. The 2010 Rules which was the subject matter of the judgment dated 28.10.2010, Annexure-B will have no application to the case of the petitioner as petitioner is claiming promotion with effect from the date Moti Lal Singh was promoted as Kanoongo i.e. from 07.10.2004 and on 07.10.2004, 2010 Rules were not in place, his case cannot be defeated in the light of 2010 Rules. Appropriate final order in the light of this order be passed by the competent authority, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the competent authority. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.