Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1675 (JHR)

Lok Nath Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-15

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him promoting to the post of Block Welfare Officer w.e.f 10.12.1993 or from the date from which several other persons, even junior to him, have been granted promotion, with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, is that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Welfare Supervisor on 01.12.1964 and retired on 30.09.1998 while posted as Welfare Supervisor, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide memo dated 18.06.1975, seniority list of 573 Welfare Supervisors was published, wherein the name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 523. It has further been submitted that in the year 1986 vide notification dated 20.03.1986, 240 Welfare Supervisors were promoted to the post of Block Welfare Officer and thereafter vide memo dated 29.12.1993, other 42 Welfare Supervisors were promoted to the post of Block Welfare Officer and thereafter another promotion list was published vide memo dated 29.11.1988, whereby several other persons were promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that in the aforesaid promotion orders, several persons, whose names do not appear in the confirmation list have been given promotion but the case of the petitioner was not considered even though he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide letter dated 10.12.1993, it has specifically been mentioned that for want of information regarding date of birth and date of appointment of the petitioner, in spite of recommendation for promotion to the post of Block Welfare Officer in the Promotion Committee, order of promotion in favour of petitioner could not be issued. In this regard, vide letter dated 06.08.1997, District Welfare Officer, Hazaribag sent information to Director, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna relating to date of birth and appointment date of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of such communication, the Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar (respondent no. 6) again sent a letter dated 29.01.1998 to Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Hazaribag giving reference to earlier letter dated 10.12.1993 asked again the same information only with a motive to evade his promotion even knowing fully well that petitioner is going to retire in the year 1998 itself. of Bihar (respondent no. 6) again sent a letter dated 29.01.1998 to Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Hazaribag giving reference to earlier letter dated 10.12.1993 asked again the same information only with a motive to evade his promotion even knowing fully well that petitioner is going to retire in the year 1998 itself. It has further been submitted that even after retirement, the petitioner made several request by way of submitting representation for grant of promotion but till date no action has been taken. 5. Referring to the reply/rejoinder filed by petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner retired on 30.09.1998 not on 31.07.1998 as averred in the counter affidavit. Furthermore, the name of the petitioner was recommended by promotion committee way back in the year 1993 but the respondents with malafide intention did not issue promotion order for want of some documents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State of Jharkhand submitted that the petitioner superannuated in the year 1998 much before creation of State of Jharkhand, therefore, the records pertaining to the matter in question lies with the Welfare Department of Bihar. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-State of Bihar submitted that a final gradation list was prepared in the March, 1986. It has further been submitted that in the year 1998 case of all eligible welfare supervisors including the petitioner was considered and accordingly vide memo dated 29.10.1998 115 persons, vide memo dated 19.12.1998 92 persons and vide memo dated 28.06.1999 24 persons were considered. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in memo dated 29.10.1998, there is specific averment that benefit of promotion will be given from the date of joining and in the gradation list date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 4.7.1940, meaning there he was supposed to retire on 31.07.1998, much before the promotion committee considered the name of eligible persons for promotion. So claim of the petitioner for promotion to the said post is not justified. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of record, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner at the time of retirement was serving in the State of Jharkhand, hence, in view of the celebrated decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India as reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 , writ is maintainable. 9. 9. From perusal of record, it came to surface that even the date of retirement of the petitioner is taken into account as 30.09.1998, the petitioner is not coming within a zone of first promotion list published vide memo dated 29.10.1998. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that promotion cannot be claimed as a right rather there is right to be considered for promotion. 10. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardev Singh v. Union of India as reported in (2011) 10 SCC 121 . Similar view has been taken in the case of A. Satyanarayana v. S. Purushotham as reported in (2008) 5 SCC 416 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 30 has held at under: “30. Although mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but right to be considered therefore is. In that view of the mater, any policy whereby all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all times to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.” 11. In the case at hand it is not the case that case of the petitioner was not considered, rather in course of consideration of the case of the petitioner, he superannuated from services, hence, no relief can be granted. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.