Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2449 (JHR)

Kishori Rajak v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-11-01

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N.Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 31.07.2007 with all consequential benefits. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to grant him promotion to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 11.07.2010 with all consequential benefits. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer by the Bihar Public Service Commission and joined the said post on 20.06.1987, under Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 20.06.1995 vide notification No. 4865 dated 31.08.1996. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and as such, he was covered by the provision of one year relaxation in the prescribed period of ten years of service as Executive Engineer for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. As such, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on 20.06.2004 i.e. on completion of 9 years of services, but in the report of the D.P.C. it has been mentioned that the respondents have considered 10 years'' services on the post of Executive Engineer as eligibility for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. Subsequently, vide notification dated 19.07.2007, the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Chaibasa and pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had given his joining on the post of Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Chaibasa on 31.07.2007. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he had completed the requisite period of 9 years of regular services on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2004 itself but he was given the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2007 i.e. 3 years after his actual date of eligibility/entitlement. Thereafter, after completing 3 years of services as Superintending Engineer, he was posted as Chief Engineering w.e.f. 11.07.2010, vide notification dated 05.07.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner has retired from his services on 31.01.2018. Aggrieved by the said act of the respondents, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to his said request and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon''ble Court. Subsequently, the petitioner has retired from his services on 31.01.2018. Aggrieved by the said act of the respondents, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to his said request and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon''ble Court. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has retired from his services but he is entitled for notional promotion. Mr. Sinha draws the attention of the Court towards interim relief granted by the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court vide its order dated 27.06.2018 in case of Amarendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 3792 of 2016) and submits that as there is no stay on the promotion matter in the State of Jharkhand, petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case, but the same was not considered in view of the stay granted by the Division Bench as interpreted by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that suffice it would be if a direction be given to the respondentauthorities to consider the case of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found entitled in view of interim order passed in case of Amarendra Kumar Singh (supra), the benefits of notional promotion shall be granted to the petitioner within a stipulated period. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, does not object to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, rather submits that if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in case of Amarendra Kumar Singh (supra), the respondents shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the fair submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2018 and the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered only on the ground of stay in case of Amarendra Kumar Singh (supra), the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion as the stay as interpreted by the respondent-authorities, have already been clarified and vacated by Hon''ble Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court. As the petitioner was otherwise found fit for promotion, as he was already enjoying the benefits of ad hoc promotion and working on the promoted post, he was entitled for the monetary benefits. The said issue fell for consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in , (2013) 4 SCC 152 and the Hon''ble Apex Court was of the view that even though the regular promotion has not been given but as the petitioner was found fit for promotion and he was continuously working on the said post, he was entitled for difference of pay-scale which he ought to have received if promoted to the said post. In the instant case, since the petitioner is continuously working on his promoted post and his promotion was delayed at the hands of the respondent-authorities only on the ground of wrong interpretation by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner is entitled for notional promotional benefits from the due dates. 7. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent-authorities to take a decision for granting notional promotion and monetary benefits to the petitioner. Let the said decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and if there is no other legal impediment, the monetary benefits shall be extended to the petitioner within a further period of three weeks. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. 9. As a sequel to the disposal of the present writ petition, pending I.As., if any, is also stand disposed of.