Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1779 (JHR)

Renu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-11

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the original petitioner, the husband of the present petitioner, has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant promotion under Assured Career Progression Scheme as envisaged by the Govt. of Jharkhand, on completion of 12 and 24 years of service and accordingly fix his pay and make payment of arrears of salary and pension along with interest. 2. The brief facts lie in a narrow compass is that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk/Assistant on 08.08.1968 and retired on 31.07.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. But, during his service tenure he was not granted any promotion and retired on the same post and in the same pay-scale. Aggrieved thereof, he made several representations but it did not evoke any response. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that as per circular issued by Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, (Annexure 1) the petitioner is entitled for grant of A.C.P on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service and passing of Accounts Examination is not a pre-condition for grant of such promotions. Referring to circular dated 09.11.1983, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the husband of the petitioner completed 50 years of age, hence as per the circular, he ought to have been exempted from passing examination. But, the respondents-authorities under the garb of not passing the Accounts Examination denied the benefit of A.C.Ps. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decisions rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., as 2000 (4) PLJR 262 (Full Bench) and also in the case of Smt. Saroj Sinha v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., as 2016 (3) JBCJ 479. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per paragraph VII of the circular dated 14.08.2002 issued by Finance Department, Govt. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per paragraph VII of the circular dated 14.08.2002 issued by Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, an employee is not entitled for the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme if he has not passed the departmental examination and in the case at hand, since the employee had not passed the accounts examination, he is not entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. Learned counsel for the respondents-State further submitted that in the said circular it has further been envisaged that for grant of A.C.P rules of promotion shall be governed. Hence, the petitioner has rightly been denied the benefit of A.C.P. 6. It is no more res integra that time bound promotion is not a promotion in the eye of law but amounts to mere grant of higher grade against same post, rank and status and is being granted to frustrate the condition of stagnation. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the deceased-employee rendered his services with utmost satisfaction of the authorities without any promotion. On plain reading of Circular of the year 2003, it does not appear that passing of Accounts Examination is even directory much less mandatory. Moreover, the petitioner has also sought shelter of circular dated 09.11.1983 which comes to rescue an employee who could not pass the departmental examination but crosses the age of 50 years, is exempted from passing such examination. Be that as it may be, at this stage where the petitioner-employee has retired and now dead, it will not be proper for this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to consider whether employee is fit to be granted relaxation or not under said Rule and for the fitness of things it would be apposite to remit the matter for consideration. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid fact, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the matter is remitted to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. and take a decision thereupon taking into account the relevant rules/circulars and case laws cited above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and copy of the decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner. It is needless to mention here if the petitioner is found eligible for consequential benefit, the same shall be extended to present petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.