Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 564 (JHR)

Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-04-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court-Heard, counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh submits that petitioner has already taken file from him along with NOC and further, he has no instruction in this matter. 3. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner inter alia seeking quashing of the order of the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in order No. 1/A-Court -33/99 Agriculture, Patna dated 11.06.2002 wherein his claim for promotion was denied and he has further sought for issuance of mandamus upon the respondents to declare the petitioner's seniority to its original position in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High court in C.W.J.C. No. 1358 of 1998(R) vide order dated 28.09.1999. He has also prayed for grant of promotion with retrospective effect from the date of his immediate junior was promoted in super time scale of pay w.e.f. 14.01.1997 and also in the scale of pay of Additional Director of Agriculture, Bihar w.e.f. 09.02.1998. He has further prayed for consequential monetary benefit of such retrospective promotion and in respect of pension and pensionary benefits. 4. The short facts of the case as per the petitioner are that his date of birth is 11.02.1941 and he was appointed as a Class-II, Gazetted Officer in the Bihar Agriculture Service vide Notification No.10823 dated 22.06.1973 and joined on the said post on 11.11.1973. He was allowed first time bound promotion w.e.f. 22.06.1983 vide Notification No. 8688, Patna dated 24.10.1993. The petitioner's case is that he was senior to one Arjun Pd. Mishra and the said Arjun Pd. Mishra was at serial no. 80 whereas his name appears at serial no. 78 in the gradation list published by the Government of Bihar, Patna vide letter no. 3722 dated 22.04.1987. The case of the petitioner is that he has suffered under the whims and caprices of the officers of the Department and he had approached this Hon'ble Court through C.W.J.C. No. 1358 of 1998(R) for a direction upon the respondent to consider his case for promotion to Senior Selection Grade. In C.W.J.C. No. 1358 of 1998(R), an order has been passed contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition whereby respondent no. 2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Senior Selection Grade on the basis that no departmental proceeding was ever pending against the petitioner. In C.W.J.C. No. 1358 of 1998(R), an order has been passed contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition whereby respondent no. 2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Senior Selection Grade on the basis that no departmental proceeding was ever pending against the petitioner. The said order was passed, in view of the contents of Annexure 9 and 11 as no counter affidavit has been filed on the part of the respondent on the said case. During the pendency of said petition, petitioner superannuated on 28th February, 1999 thereafter petitioner again moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1562 of 2002 with the grievance relating to promotion which was said to be pending since 16.08.2001 and it was being considered by the concerned authority. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2002 without going into the merit of the case directing the concerned authority to look into the matter and consider the case of the petitioner after giving all reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to him and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date he receives the said representation (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner's case was thereafter, considered and his claim for promotion was rejected by the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna vide order dated 11.06.2002 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) impugned herein. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State of Bihar in which they have stated that impugned order was legal and valid and has been passed taking into consideration of all relevant materials. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that petitioner was granted the benefit of Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 29.11.1990 in the Scale of in the scale of 3700-5000 after passing of the order in C.W.J.C. No. 1358 of 1998(R). Petitioner had also claimed promotion in Super Time Scale claiming that his Junior, Arjun Pd. Mishra was granted promotion on the post of Additional Director of Agriculture on 14.01.1997 and 09.02.1998 respectively. While passing the impugned order, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna has taken into account the fact that the said promotion of Arjun Pd. Mishra on the aforesaid post itself was cancelled and subsequently granted w.e.f. 09.02.1998. Mishra was granted promotion on the post of Additional Director of Agriculture on 14.01.1997 and 09.02.1998 respectively. While passing the impugned order, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna has taken into account the fact that the said promotion of Arjun Pd. Mishra on the aforesaid post itself was cancelled and subsequently granted w.e.f. 09.02.1998. At the same time, it has been stated that the post of Additional Director of Agriculture was ex-cadre and selective post, on which promotion cannot be claimed on the basis of seniority alone. It has further been recorded that the petitioner had never worked on the post of the Super Time Scale and was also never granted promotion to the said scale. Moreover, the petitioner had retired on 28th February, 1999 itself and it has been stated that the provision of promotion in selection grade has been abolished w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide notification no. 660(F) dated 08.02.1999. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the claims of the petitioner for promotion to the Super Time Selection Scale has been rejected by the impugned order. The respondents in their counter affidavit also justified the aforesaid reasons on so many facts. 7. I carefully gone through the records and heard learned counsel for the respondents including counsel for the State of Bihar. I find that the claim of the petitioner was considered taking into account all the relevant materials and facts and has been rejected by the impugned order by passing a speaking and reasoned order clearly holding that the claim of the petitioner for promotion of Super Time Scale is not a matter of right and it is not depending upon the seniority alone. The petitioner had not worked in the said scale, which is ex-cadre and selective post and retired on 28th February, 1999, therefore, his claim for promotion could not have been sustained. 8. In view of the above, I am satisfied that it is not a case for interference in the impugned order (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.