Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1175 (JHR)

Keshav Kumar Sinha v. Union of India

2015-09-23

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
Order : This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 20.09.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2458 of 2012 wherein the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without allowing the relief sought for in the writ petition, however with an observation that if the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the next higher post in terms of the service conditions, rules, circulars etc. applicable to the petitioner's service, the respondents would consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. Sans details, facts as averred in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that earlier the appellant (original petitioner) approached by way of filing writ application, being W.P. (S) No. 3852 of 2011 praying, inter alia, for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator on the ground that persons junior to him has been promoted on the said post in the year 2008. Subsequently in 2010, juniors to the appellant were promoted, but the appellant's case was not considered, the appellant made representation before the Director-in-Health Services, Jharkhand but it failed to evoke any response, hence, the appellant moved this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 3852 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2011 with a direction to Director-in-Health Services, Jharkhand to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator from the date when juniors to the petitioner, namely, Mritunjay Kumar and Pankaj Kumar Pandey, have been promoted within a period of one and half months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, when the aforesaid order of this Court was not complied with, the appellant preferred Cont. Case (C) No. 810 of 2011, whereafter only the appellant was given promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator vide order dated 15.02.2012 w.e.f. 02.04.2008, but, it is alleged that neither it was his qualifying date nor equally to his juniors, namely, Mritunjay Kumar and Pankaj Kumar. 3. Case (C) No. 810 of 2011, whereafter only the appellant was given promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator vide order dated 15.02.2012 w.e.f. 02.04.2008, but, it is alleged that neither it was his qualifying date nor equally to his juniors, namely, Mritunjay Kumar and Pankaj Kumar. 3. Subsequently, writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 2458 of 2012 was filed by the appellant praying therein for grant of promotions on the post Block Extension Educator with the qualifying date, as granted to his juniors and further for promotion on the post of Deputy District Extension Media Officer/District Extension and Media Officer in compliance to the direction dated 06.09.2011 passed in pursuance to order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the Court, in terms to Annexure -2 and Annexure 3 to the writ application. The appellant further prayed for maintaining his seniority in his cadre and also for payment of salary and allowances with interest for delayed payment and sufferance caused to the petitioner. After considering the materials available on record, the writ petition was disposed of. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant approached this Court for redressal of his grievances as aforesaid. 4. During pendency of the instant appeal, basing on the submission of the appellant (party-in-person), this Court passed order dated 29.04.2015, relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: “1. …. …. …. But, the government has not considered the case of this appellant as per his seniority and now recently this appellant came to know that few juniors to him have been promoted to the post of Block Extension Educator and they are as under:- Sr. No Name Date of Appointment as Male Family Welfare Worker 1. Fagau Oraon 08.09.1986 2. Shambhu Oraon 09.09.1986 3. Prabhu Bhagat 17.09.1986 4. Subodh Kumar Singh 03.03.2005 2. All the aforesaid persons, though they are juniors to this appellants have been promoted by the State Government and no seniority list has ever been published by the Government of “Male Family Welfare Worker” or Feeder cadre post and therefore, immediate petition could not be filed this appellant. Prabhu Bhagat 17.09.1986 4. Subodh Kumar Singh 03.03.2005 2. All the aforesaid persons, though they are juniors to this appellants have been promoted by the State Government and no seniority list has ever been published by the Government of “Male Family Welfare Worker” or Feeder cadre post and therefore, immediate petition could not be filed this appellant. Nonetheless, fact remains that no sooner the date, this appellant came to know about the names of the aforesaid junior persons who have been promoted, W.P.(C) No. 2458 of 2012 was preferred and even today also there is vacancies in the post of Block Extension Educator and therefore it is submitted by the appellant that the date of promotion, which is given to this appellant in 15.2.2011 should be made w.e.f. 1988. 3. Counsel for the respondent State is seeking time and hence the matter is adjourned to be listed on 24.06.2015.” 5. In pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2015, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that in pursuance to the advertisement published, the aforesaid persons were selected and appointment letter was issued vide memo dated 4.9.1986, but subsequently, the services of the aforesaid persons (as mentioned in chart) have been terminated from the post of Block Extension Educator on 27.09.1994, against which, they preferred C.W.J.C No. 272 of 1994 (R), which was allowed and order of termination was quashed. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner is entirely different from the above persons, as the appellant was appointed on the post of “Male Family Welfare Worker” and then promoted to the post of “Block Extension Educator” whereas persons whose names appear at serial no. 1 to 3 in the above chart have been directly appointed on the scale of “Block Extension Educator” and so far as person whose name appears at serial no. 4 (Subodh Kumar Singh) is concerned, he has been appointed on the post of 'Block Extension Educator directly by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer vide memo no. 210 dated 02.03.2005 and subsequently when it was found that he was directly appointed on compassionate ground on State cadre post, the then Director-in-Chief, Chief Health Services reverted him on the post of Family Welfare Worker, however, the said reversion has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 01.07.2013 in W.P.(S) No. 7490 of 2012. 210 dated 02.03.2005 and subsequently when it was found that he was directly appointed on compassionate ground on State cadre post, the then Director-in-Chief, Chief Health Services reverted him on the post of Family Welfare Worker, however, the said reversion has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 01.07.2013 in W.P.(S) No. 7490 of 2012. It has further been submitted that the present appellant has filed 5 another writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 2465 of 2012 for sanction of 2nd and 3rd A.C.P/M.A.C.P as the said claim of the appellant was rejected by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand vide memo dated 05.05.2013 on the ground that there is break in service of the appellant from 15.01.1987 to 28.01.1987 and 13.03.2012 to 4.07.2013 and even the 1st A.C.P given to the petitioner without regularizing the period is not as per the Government norms. 6. Heard Mr. Keshav Kumar Sinha, the appellant-in-person and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A. for the respondents-State and perused the materials available on record. 7. Appellant-in-person has strenuously urged before this Court that the case of the appellant ought to have been considered from the date his juniors, as mentioned at Annexure 4 to the writ application and the promotion, which has been effected from 02.04.2008 ought to have been ante-dated to the year 1986, as evident from Annexure 10 to the memo of appeal. 8. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-State, reiterating the submissions made in counter affidavit has assiduously urged before this Court that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.09.2014 is absolutely justified and there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which never warrants interference by this Court. 9. The appellant pursuant to the order passed by this Court in earlier writ application was given promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator with effect from 02.04.2008 when the juniors to the appellant had been promoted. However, the appellant being dissatisfied with that order had filed a writ application seeking direction upon the authorities to promote the appellant with effect from 08.09.1986/ 09.09.1986/ 17.09.1986, from which dates, Fagau Oraon, Shambhu Oraon and Prabhu Bhagat working on the post of Block Extension Educator as according to the appellant they were junior to him. However, the appellant being dissatisfied with that order had filed a writ application seeking direction upon the authorities to promote the appellant with effect from 08.09.1986/ 09.09.1986/ 17.09.1986, from which dates, Fagau Oraon, Shambhu Oraon and Prabhu Bhagat working on the post of Block Extension Educator as according to the appellant they were junior to him. Such claim seems to be wholly unjustified as those persons had been appointed as Block Extension Educator whereas the appellant at that time was holding the post of Family Welfare Worker and as such they cannot be said to be junior to the appellant. 10. Having heard the appellant-in-person and learned counsel for the respondents-State at length and on the conspectus of facts and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter in right perspective and there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference by this Court. 11. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.