Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 319 (PAT)

Tarkeshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-03-06

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Development Commission-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran (respondent no.5), whereby, the petitioner has been directed to make over the charge of Head Assistant to respondent No.6. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that he was asked to work as Accountant-cum -Head Assistant vide office memo no. 114 dated 7.3.2005 pursuant to a decision taken by the Standing Committee, Zila Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has attacked the impugned order on the ground that the decision taken by the Standing Committee of Zila Parishad could not have been altered by an executive order passed by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, East Champaran at Motihari. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents Zila Parishad and its officials. It has been asserted in the said counter affidavit that a First Information Report was instituted against the petitioner with the allegation of accepting bribe from different persons for allotment of land for shops and the petitioner was taken into custody and was therefore, put under suspension. It has been stated that in such circumstance a decision was taken not to allow him to function as Accountant-cum-Head Assistant of Zila Parishad. 5. A reply to the said counter affidavit has also been filed, denying the allegations made against the petitioner. In reply to a query made by this Court, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has admitted that with the issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner has not suffered any financial loss. His contention is that by the resolution of the District Zila Parishad the petitioner’s case could have been considered for promotion and if the impugned order is allowed to continue, the petitioner may loose his chance for promotion as contemplated in the resolution taken by the Standing Committee of the Zila Parishad. 6. I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot have any valid grievance against the impugned order dated 24.1.2007, whereby the petitioner has been asked to make over charge of Head Assistant to any person as it is not his case that he is going to suffer any financial loss or he is being asked to discharge his duties under any person who is junior to him. The order dated 24.1.2007 therefore, needs no interference. The order dated 24.1.2007 therefore, needs no interference. 7. So far as the apprehension of the petitioner that his case will not be considered for promotion as stipulated in the decision of the Standing Committee of the Zila Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to promotion in accordance with law and the said decision of the Standing Committee of the Zila Parishad, if it stipulates grant of promotion to the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law at appropriate time. 8. This application is disposed of accordingly.