Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2013 (JHR)

Siddh Nath Pandey v. Union Of India

2017-11-22

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion with all consequential benefits as A.S.I. with effect from the date his juniors and similarly placed persons have been promoted. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, are that the petitioner joined in the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1973 at B.C.C.L., Dhanbad on the post of Constable. After rendering more than 8 years of service, the post of the petitioner as Constable has been confirmed on 01.01.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of the Lance Naik in the year 1988 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Again in course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Naik. The promotion of the petitioner to the post of the Naik has been effected after consideration of the representation of the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ application that several batchmates of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Wakil Yadav, Mr. P.S. Bhagat, and Mr. A.N. Singh have been promoted to the higher post ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In this regard, a representation has been submitted by the petitioner to the respondents-authorities vide Annexures-7 to the writ application. Another representation has also been submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. The representation submitted by the petitioner fell on the deaf ears of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents, the petitioner left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein, it has been stated that during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector on 16.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotion of the petitioner to the aforesaid post has been delayed and his promotion ought to have been effected from the date on which his juniors have been given promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotion of the petitioner to the aforesaid post has been delayed and his promotion ought to have been effected from the date on which his juniors have been given promotion. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2013, his case for promotion ought to have been considered for promotion to the rank of the Sub Inspector. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, refuting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the batchmates of the petitioner have got promotion timely and became senior to the petitioner as they were confirmed on 06.12.1980, whereas, the petitioner was confirmed as Constable only on 01.01.1983 as the dismissal period from 18.09.1980 to 14.10.1981 have been regularized without pay, therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted as Head Constable alongwith his batchmates. It has further been stated and submitted in the counter affidavit that on promotion as Head Constable on 10.10.1997, the petitioner has been assigned PSL No. 17228 in the rank of Head Constable/GD. Head Constables up to PSL No. 11015 have so far been promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector/Exe. It has further been stated and submitted in the counter affidavit that the candidature of the petitioner will be considered, when his turn comes, subject to availability of vacancy in the rank. 5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union of India being assisted by Mr. B.K. Prasad, learned J.C. to A.S.G.I. has assiduously submitted that so far as the grievance of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector is concerned, the same has been granted in the year 2010, but so far as the promotion to the post of the Sub-Inspector is concerned, when the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration under the relevant Service Rules, his case will be considered by the respondents. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner, so far as promotion to the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector is concerned, has already been redressed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner, so far as promotion to the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector is concerned, has already been redressed. As regards the promotion to the post of the Sub-Inspector is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file representation to the concerned respondents-authorities within a period of eight weeks from today annexing all the relevant documents and on receipt of the said representation, the respondents and more particularly, the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of the Sub-Inspector, Central Industrial Security Force in accordance with law and the relevant rules and regulations as well as Circulars etc. within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the decision taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. It is needless to mention that on consideration of the representation, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of the Sub-Inspector, all notional consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.