Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 889 (JHR)

Ram Sundar Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-19

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as well as Accountant General. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for granting annual increment to the petitioner and consequently to issue revised pay-slip after granting annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2011 and 01.07.2012. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner joined the post of Junior Engineer on 08.02.1979 and was ultimately promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 20.04.2011 and he retired on the said post on 31.07.2012 after completion of his age of superannuation. It is the case of the petitioner that although he cleared the departmental examination held from 13.02.2012 to 17.02.2012, in which he passed the Canal Part A, B, C examination and his name finds place at Sl. No. 8 but unfortunately, he could not pass the Hindi subject and no further opportunity was available as he retired on 31.07.2012. As the case of the petitioner was not considered for granting annual increment though he had cleared the departmental examination other than passing of Hindi Examination, he represented before the respondents for exonerating him from passing professional and departmental examination, but the same was not done and no orders were passed on his representation and hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court by filing the instant writ application for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that as per Clause-3 of the Rules for the Departmental Examination of Officers and Subordinates of the Public Works Department, petitioner has to clear the departmental and professional examination within two years of his joining but unfortunately, the petitioner could not avail the said period as examinations were not held regularly and as such, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not passing the said examinations, as examinations were not held regularly as per the Rules. Learned counsel further argues the petitioner has also crossed 50 years of age prior to his retirement and has requested for exonerating him from passing the departmental examination but the same was not considered by the respondents, which is contrary to the Rules of the Department. Learned counsel further argues the petitioner has also crossed 50 years of age prior to his retirement and has requested for exonerating him from passing the departmental examination but the same was not considered by the respondents, which is contrary to the Rules of the Department. As such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider his case for granting him the benefits of annual increments by exonerating him from passing the departmental examination as he has crossed 50 years of age. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and submits that in no way the petitioner is entitled for any annual increments since as per statutes and regulations, he has to clear the departmental examination because, as per the statutes, if an employee does not clear the departmental examination he is not entitled for any benefits of increments. Learned counsel further argues that no representation of the petitioner is pending with respect to exonerating him from passing the departmental examination and as the petitioner has already superannuated, he is not entitled for any exoneration. As such, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and it should be dismissed out rightly. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the present writ petition. Admittedly the petitioner has not cleared the departmental examination. Rules for the Departmental Examination of Officers and Subordinates of the Public Works Department clearly speaks that "An officer who fails to pass his Departmental Examination within the prescribed times viz. for languages within the periods prescribed in Rule 5 below and for law (Part A, B and C) within two years of joining his appointment will receive no further increments of pay until the examination is passed. " and as such, petitioner is not entitled for any increments. Even relaxation from passing the departmental examination cannot be given after retirement of an employee. Further, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that he had made representation before respondents for exonerating him from passing the departmental examination. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.