Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1209 (JHR)

Shail Prava Kujur v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-26

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant writ application has been filed with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Collector and further to the rank of Joint Secretary (Super Time-I Scale) in view of the facts that the juniors to the petitioner have already been granted the said promotion. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on 15.05.1996, by clearing the 38th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and the name of the petitioner was notified vide Notification dated 25th May, 1996 to hold the post of Dy. Collector. After working to the satisfaction of the respondents on the said post, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Officer vide Notification dated 19.07.2007. It is specific case of the petitioner that thereafter she became eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Collector, but she was not granted promotion rather her case was kept under sealed cover for the reason that there were two criminal cases pending against her, one being T.R. No. 09/2016 and another being T.R. No. 11/2016. As the juniors were considered and granted promotion to the post of Additional Collector and Joint Secretary in super time scale and further the petitioner was acquitted in both the criminal cases, the cause of action has arisen and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC for granting promotion, but no order to that effect was passed and case of the petitioner was kept under sealed cover procedures. Learned counsel further argues that as admittedly, the juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion, petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits as the petitioner is acquitted from both the criminal cases. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Learned counsel further argues that as admittedly, the juniors to the petitioner have been considered and granted promotion, petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits as the petitioner is acquitted from both the criminal cases. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Janki Raman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and submits that as the petitioner is still working, her case ought to have been considered with all consequential benefits as early as possible as the juniors to the petitioner are getting higher scale and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Collector and further to the post of Joint Secretary rank (Super Time-I Scale) from the date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion with all consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Jagdeesh Kumar learned counsel for the respondents submits that in absence of any counter-affidavit, he is not in a position to say as to why the case of the petitioner was not considered. However, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, there was no occasion to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion along with other similarly situated persons. . 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Since the respondents themselves have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion and have kept it in sealed cover procedures and as the petitioner has already been acquitted in both the criminal cases, right has accrued to her for consideration of her case for promotion. Law is very clear that promotion is not a right of the employee but she has a right to be consideration as a fair consideration has to be done in a welfare state. In view of the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Law is very clear that promotion is not a right of the employee but she has a right to be consideration as a fair consideration has to be done in a welfare state. In view of the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Janki Raman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , the case of the petitioner should be considered and accordingly, petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents with a copy of this order before the competent authority particularly respondent No.2, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, by opening sealed cover and if the petitioner has been acquitted in all the criminal cases, which has been brought to the notice of the respondents and considering the fact that the juniors to the petitioner have already been considered and granted promotion, a suitable order to that extent be passed within a period of two months thereafter. 7. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for the aforesaid promotions, the same shall be extended to her with all consequential benefits, within a further period of four weeks. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.