Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 446 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-26

P.P.BHATT

body2012
Order 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 569 of 2012. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State has no objection, if the amendment application is allowed. 4. The petitioner has died during the pendency of this writ petition and therefore, being a legal heir of the petitioner, i.e. the widow, Pushpa Devi, wife of late Sunil Kumar Pandey, submitted an application to implead/substitute her as petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. 6. Pushpa Devi is substituted as petitioner. 7. The petitioner is also seeking amendment in the prayer clause by way of this Interlocutory Application. 8. In the light of the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out necessary amendments in the main petition accordingly, during the course of the day. 10. I.A. No. 569 of 2012 stands disposed of. W.P. (S) No. 4670 of 2006 11.The petitioner, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting promotion to the post of Sectional Officer in accordance with law and to grant the benefits of the revised pay-scale and also to pay the benefit of the A.C.P. which has not been granted till date, whereas, juniors to the petitioner are availing the benefits of A.C.P. as well as revised pay-scale. 12. The order passed on the previous occasion, i.e. 02nd February, 2011, makes the entire picture very clear and is also very much relevant for the purpose of deciding and disposing of present case. The order dated 02nd February, 2011 reproduced below: - “This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the relief by way of grant of promotional benefits and the revised pay scales and also to pay all the benefits of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) which has not been granted to the petitioner till date, whereas his juniors have already been granted such benefits as well as the benefits of the revised pay scales. Respondent no. Respondent no. 3 has filed counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner has claimed that he had appeared in the departmental examination of Secretariat Examination held in the year 1983 and he passed the 2nd and 3rd papers but the results of the aforesaid examination has not been entered in his service book, nor any communication has been received from the erstwhile State of Bihar. So, his A.C.P. and other benefits have not been considered by the State of Jharkhand. Respondent No. 2 has also filed counter affidavit wherein it has been categorically mentioned inter alia that steps have been taken for procuring information from the Administrative Department and on receipt of such information, the matter will be considered for regular promotion and grant of A.C.P. to the petitioner. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's result of 2nd and 3rd papers has not been received so far. The matter is pending since 2000 and after bifurcation, ten years have elapsed, but the relevant documents could not be procured from the State of Bihar. So, it would be just and proper that the respondents no. 2 and 3 be directed to procure the said documents from the concerned office of the State of Bihar. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (respondent no.2) and the Commissioner, Dumka Division (respondent no.3) shall take immediate steps to procure the said documents in regard to the petitioner within twenty days from today and thereafter, they will decide within twenty days the case of the petitioner in the light of the papers received from the concerned department and the outcome of the entire exercise would be submitted before this Court within two months from today. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the respondents no.2 and 3 by the Registry. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the State shall also communicate the said order to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and the Commissioner shall file his personal affidavit before this Court after two months and in case, no decision is taken, the Commissioner shall personally appear before this Court on the next date and explain the reasons for the delay caused in the matter. Post this case under the same heading after two months” 13.Thus, it appears that considering the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, the Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner, Dumka Division (Respondent No. 3) were directed to take immediate steps to procure the said documents in regard to the petitioner within twenty days from the date of the order and thereafter, they were directed to decide within twenty days the case of the petitioner in the light of the papers received from the concerned department and the outcome of the entire exercise was to be submitted before this Court within two months from the date of the order, but unfortunately, thereafter, the matter could not be effectively heard by this Court. During the intervening period, the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 10.05.2011 was submitted on record, wherein vide Annexure-H, order passed by the Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department of the State of Jharkhand was produced on record, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by passing a three page order on the ground that since the petitioner has not cleared the requisite departmental examination, he is not entitled to the benefit as prayed for. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from Annexure-I, i.e. the letter written by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka addressed to the Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand that the petitioner has cleared the requisite departmental examination and copy of the list of successful candidates was also enclosed, wherein, the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon the results, which has been annexed along with the counter affidavit, filed by the State, wherein, the Roll number, name, designation and the marks obtained, have been stated. 15. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert this factual position, which emerged out of the counter affidavit and the documents produced by the State itself. It appears that on earlier occasion, by the order dated-02nd February, 2011, the Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner, Dumka Division (Respondent No. 3) were directed to take decision on the basis of the information received from the State of Bihar. It appears that on earlier occasion, by the order dated-02nd February, 2011, the Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner, Dumka Division (Respondent No. 3) were directed to take decision on the basis of the information received from the State of Bihar. Though the information was supplied as referred vide Annexure-I, dated 27th April, 2011, the decision taken, was contrary to the information received. This action and attitude on the part of State officials was absolutely unwarranted and unjustifiable and deserves to be condemned/deprecated. Unfortunately, the petitioner died during the pendency of this petition without enjoying fruits of his legitimate dues. Therefore, the widow being a legal heir is now substituted as petitioner in the proceedings so that now at least the family can avail the legitimate dues. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to issue necessary orders, extending the benefit of death-cum-retirement benefits of the promotional post on the basis of revised pay-scale including the benefits of A.C.P. without any further delay. The Respondent-State shall undertake this exercise and complete the required formalities and issue necessary orders in this regard within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.