Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1767 (JHR)

Ram Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-07

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner from passing the departmental examination (accounts) in terms of letter no. 4674, dated 15.05.1992, issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction for payment of arrears of pension and other retiral benefits. 3. Case of the petitioner falls in narrow compass. Petitioner joined the Police service to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1981. Thereafter, because of his satisfactory and unblemished career, he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 2006. Further, vide Memo No. 1772, dated 25.03.2015, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Petitioner joined as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rail), Chakradharpur on 02.05.2015 and after working there for more than two years, he superannuated from the service on 31.03.2017. It was requirement of law and as per departmental instruction, the petitioner had to clear departmental examination in Accounts for getting further increments. However, unfortunately he failed to pass the said examination though appeared on several occasions. Thereafter, petitioner made representation before the respondents authorities for considering his case for granting exemption from passing the departmental examination as per the rule as petitioner had crossed 50 years of age and had appeared in the said examinations on several occasion but could not clear it. Though petitioner retired on 31.03.2017, but no decision has been taken for granting exemption from passing the departmental examination and as such, he has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 4. Mr. Chanchal Jain and Mr. Sameer Sahay appear on behalf of the petitioner and submit that petitioner is entitled for exemption as per the rule. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towares Annexure-4, Page-27 to the writ petition and submits that as per Rule-3, petitioner appeared in the said examination but could not succeed and as such, he is entitled for exemption as per the Rule dated 15.05.1992. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towares Annexure-4, Page-27 to the writ petition and submits that as per Rule-3, petitioner appeared in the said examination but could not succeed and as such, he is entitled for exemption as per the Rule dated 15.05.1992. It has been further argued that similarly situated persons who were also Deputy Superintendent of Police and made representation for consideration of their cases for exemption from passing departmental accounts examination, their cases have been duly considered and they have already been granted exemption on completion of 50 years of age though they did not clear departmental accounts examination. Learned counsel further submits that in similarly situated circumstances, this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2789 of 2016 has directed the respondents to consider case for grant of exemption from passing departmental accounts examination to the deceased-employee therein and provide consequential benefits to the legal heir/wife. 5. Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, AC to learned AAG vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that admittedly petitioner has retired on 31.03.2017 and no decision can be taken on the representation after retirement. After retirement, petitioner is not entitled for any exemption. Learned counsel however fairly submits that as representation of the petitioner is pending, reasoned order shall be passed considering rules for exemption. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner had made representation before the authorities after completion of 50 years and before retirement. The authorities were at fault by not taking any decision on the pending representation for exemption. It has been brought to the knowledge of this Court by way of Annexure-10 that similarly situated persons who have crossed age of 50 years, their cases have been considered and they have already been granted exemption. There is no occasion as to why case of the present petitioner be not considered for exemption. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby direct the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner in view of the Resolution dated 15.05.1992, particularly clause-3 thereof within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby direct the respondent no. 2 to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner in view of the Resolution dated 15.05.1992, particularly clause-3 thereof within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if petitioner is found entitled for the reliefs claimed for, appropriate order be passed in accordance with law and the benefits be extended to him within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is further hereby directed that if there be any adverse order, the same be also communicated to the petitioner within a period of three weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.