Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 554 (JHR)

Prithivi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-26

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief : - (i) For promotion to the post of Sr. Deputy Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect from 24.06.2011 as the other Deputy Superintendent of Police have been promoted to the said post from that date. (ii) To grant him promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police from May, 2014 as his batch mates were promoted to the said post. (iii) To pay difference of salary of the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police from 24.06.2011 to 29.08.2012 and the difference of salary of the post of Additional Superintendent of Police from may 2014 till the date of his superannuation, i.e. 30.01.2015 will all consequential benefits as he worked on those posts as Incharge. 2. During course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed a reply to the counter affidavit and has crystallized his prayer to which he sticks now. Paragraph-3 of the reply to the counter affidavit, filed on 21.01.2019, is quoted herein below:- “3. That the claim of the petitioner in the present writ application is as follows :- (i) For grant of post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in grade pay of Rs. 6600/-be granted from 24.06.2011 in place of 29.08.2012, already granted vide order as contained in Annexure-4 at page 38 of the writ application. (ii) The petitioner be further granted promotion to the post of Additional superintendent of Police from February, 2014 in grade pay of Rs. 7600/-. (iii) The petitioner be further granted monetary benefits as admissible under Jharkhand Service Code for holding and discharging the duties of higher post of Commandant, IRB-2, Chaibasa, till his retirement on 31.01.2015. (iv) Lastly the differences of pay/salary on account of higher grade pay as claimed above. (v) The petitioner has further prayed for grant of consequential benefits in pension and other entitlements alongwith differences in salary and allowances.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as the Senior Dy.S.P. in the grade pay of Rs. 6600/- w.e.f. 24.06.2011, i.e. the date when his batch mate Raja Ram Prasad was given promotion. He further submits that since there was a vacant post of Sr. Dy. S.P., the petitioner should have been accommodated in the year 2011 itself. 6600/- w.e.f. 24.06.2011, i.e. the date when his batch mate Raja Ram Prasad was given promotion. He further submits that since there was a vacant post of Sr. Dy. S.P., the petitioner should have been accommodated in the year 2011 itself. He further submits that the petitioner thereafter was given charge of Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police rank, so he is entitled to get the consequential benefits and pay scale of S.P. and all the promotional benefits. He further submits that the Government has already relaxed the minimum tenure to be eligible for giving promotion to the post of Addl. Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police and thus, the petitioner is entitled to get the said future promotion. He further submits that since he was working as against the post of Superintendent of Police, he is entitled to get the regular scale of the said post also. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. He submits that the petitioner is in fact claiming to shift his date of promotion as Sr. Dy.S.P. He submits that his case cannot be equated with that of Raja Ram Prasad and Dineshwar Prasad Choudhary as they were granted promotion in the year 2011 itself. He further submits that the petitioner was promoted in the year 2012. Thus, his claim that his date of promotion should be with effect from the date when Raja Ram Prasad and Dineshwar Pd. Choudhary was granted promotion, is not acceptable. He further submits that though Raja Ram Prasad and this petitioner is batch mate but admittedly, Raja Ram Prasad is senior to the petitioner and Raja Ram Prasad was promoted on 24.06.2011 on the post of Sr. Dy.S.P. and the petitioner was promoted on the said post on 29.08.2012 and there is no ground whatsoever to shift the date of promotion of the petitioner when admittedly Raja Ram Prasad is senior to the petitioner and no junior was granted promotion prior to the date the petitioner was promoted. He lastly submits that the promotion, which was granted in the year 2012 is being challenged by the petitioner in the year 2017 that too after superannuating from service. He lastly submits that the promotion, which was granted in the year 2012 is being challenged by the petitioner in the year 2017 that too after superannuating from service. He submits that since the date of promotion of the petitioner cannot be changed from 2012 to 2011, his prayer for consequential relief also fails. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the main prayer of the petitioner is that his date of promotion to the post of Sr. Dy.S.P., which is 29.08.2012 should be shifted to 24.06.2011, i.e. the date when his batch mate Raja Ram Prasad and Dineshwar Pd. Choudhary was given promotion. The petitioner is claiming this relief only on the ground that both these persons and the petitioner have entered into service in the same year and they are of the same batch and therefore, their date of promotion should also be same. 6. This contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. Admittedly, the petitioner is junior to Raja Ram Prasad and Dineshwar Pd. Choudhary. They were promoted to the post of Sr. Dy.S.P. on 24.06.2011 and in the seniority list there are five persons between Raja Ram Prasad and this petitioner. Out of those five persons, one Charo Lakra, who is also senior to the petitioner, was given promotion on 31.07.2012. The person, who is immediately senior to this petitioner, was promoted to the post of Sr. Dy.S.P. on the same very date the petitioner was promoted. The petitioner has admitted that no junior has been given promotion prior to the petitioner. If the petitioner’s contention is accepted then it would amount to supersession of several other seniors as because there are five persons above this petitioner in the seniority list and the entire seniority list will get disturbed. 7. Further, I find that none of these persons have been made party in this writ application, who will be directly affected by the prayer, which the petitioner has made. Further, when no junior has been granted promotion prior to the petitioner, he has got no right to be promoted from the date when his batch mate, who admittedly, was senior to the petitioner, was promoted. In one way or the other, the petitioner is, in fact, challenging the seniority list, which was prepared on 01.01.2013. The petitioner accepted the same and worked till his superannuation, i.e. 31.01.2015. In one way or the other, the petitioner is, in fact, challenging the seniority list, which was prepared on 01.01.2013. The petitioner accepted the same and worked till his superannuation, i.e. 31.01.2015. He never approached this Court during that period but only represented once on 19.11.2014, i.e. at the fag end of his service career. Even after retirement, he kept mum for nearly two and a half years and filed this writ application in October, 2017. Thus, there is delay on the part of the petitioner in raising his grievance and after his superannuation, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained when there are other persons, who are senior to the petitioner and who will be directly affected, are not the party in this writ application. 8. Thus, having found no merit, this writ application stands dismissed.