Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4 (JHR)

Sushil Kumar ranjan v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-02

P.P.BHATT, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT In L.P.A. No. 444 of 2010, all respondents, except respondent nos. 14, 22 and 30, have been served. So far as notice on respondent nos. 14 and 22 are concerned, there is report that the postal person has not mentioned about service therefore, service of respondent no. 14 and 22 is incomplete. However, Sri Krishna Murari has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 14 therefore, service of respondent no. 14 is complete. No need to issue notice to respondent no. 14. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.22 therefore, fresh notice be issued to respondent no. 22 by registered post for which steps be taken within one week. Respondent no. 30 has died and the appellants, if wishes to take steps due to death of respondent no. 30, he may take steps. The matter shall remain kept along with the other connected matters i.e. L.P.A. Nos. 296/2010, 298/2010 and 354/2010. It is made clear that in case the other matters will be matured for hearing, this matter shall also be considered and the respondents, who have been served, if wishes to file the counter or objection to the maintainability of L.P.A. No. 444/2010, they may submit the same. In L.P.A. No. 296 of 2010 prayer for vacating the interim order of stay was rejected on 09.02.2011 Learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents both are requesting for early hearing of the matter. The matter will be heard immediately after service of the respondents in connected L.P.A. No. 444/2010. Therefore, the appellants in L.P.A. No. 444/2010 is asked to submit the requisites for sending the notice by registered post within a period of one week from today. Learned counsel for the applicant, who has moved I.A. No. 2562 of 2011 in L.P.A. No. 354 of 2011, submits that the applicant is eligible for promotion but he is not being granted promotion because of pendency of these L.P.A and the interim order passed in L.P.A. No. 296 of 2011. According to him, his case has no relevance with the controversy involved in this L.P.A. or in the writ petition. According to learned counsel for the applicant, appropriate order may be passed permitting the respondents to accord promotion to the employees whose cases are not affected or are not covered under this dispute pending before this Court. According to him, his case has no relevance with the controversy involved in this L.P.A. or in the writ petition. According to learned counsel for the applicant, appropriate order may be passed permitting the respondents to accord promotion to the employees whose cases are not affected or are not covered under this dispute pending before this Court. Since it is the prerogative of the employer to take a decision about promotion, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant for passing any appropriate order when according to applicant himself, his case does not have any connection with the controversy involved in this writ petition. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the promotions are not being accorded to those persons whose cases do not have any direct connection with the controversy involved in this L.P.A. or original writ petition. Therefore, I.A. No. 2562 of 2011 is disposed of without any order.