Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 600 (PAT)

Ambika Pandey v. State of Bihar

2012-04-11

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 2.7.2011/20.10.2011 issued by the Secretary (Technical) cum Public information Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer to the extent that it denies first time bound promotion from another date claiming it to be admissible from 20.8.1985 in accordance with the revised pay scale. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the date for grant of second time bound promotion in a lower pay scale as communicated by order dated 19.10.2011. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed in the work charge establishment on 23.12.1970 and brought in to regular establishment on 20.8.1985. The period spent in the work charge establishment has to be counted for purposes of time bound promotion as mentioned in the government instruction dated 27.3.1987. He next submits that in CWJC No. 9714 of 2002 it has been held that any assignment of higher responsibility in the work charge establishment itself does not amount to promotion depriving consideration for time bound promotion. Apart from the same reliance is placed on the orders of the Court reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 21 and 2012 (1) PLJR 129 . The submission therefore is that he is eligible for first time bound promotion from 20.8.1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-540/- (as revised from time to time) and for second ACP in the appropriate scale thereafter from 23.12.1995. The respondents have wrongly granted him first ACP from 9.8.1999 and second ACP from 10.10.2005. 4. Counsel for the State submits that if there are any orders of the Court on the issue the respondents may be directed to examine the judgment of the Court and pass fresh appropriate orders and for which the petitioner appears to have represented also enclosing the orders of the Court on 18.11.2011. 5. This application is disposed with a direction to the Chief Engineer to dispose of the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned and speaking order. If the respondent is of the opinion that the judgment sought to be relied upon did not create a cause of action for the petitioner the Chief Engineer is required to give a notice in writing to the petitioner pointing out the grounds on which the judgment does not apply to him, grant him a personal hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order. Needless to state that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim necessary consequential order shall be passed on all aspects including monetary. 6. Let the order be complied with in its entirety within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. In that event the petitioner is required to be paid not only arrears of salary, arrears of pension but also the Pension Payment Order is required to be corrected within the same period. 7. Since the orders dated 2.7.2011, 19.10.2011, 20.10.2011 and 2.7.2011 appear to have been passed without consideration of the law laid down by the Court in the two judgments referred to above it shall be no impediment for the respondents in passing fresh appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. If the petitioner represents to be considered for grant of third ACP the court expects it to be considered also. 9. The writ application stands disposed.