Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 January, 2012
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4980 of 1998.
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
=======================================================
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha son of Shri R. Sinha, at present working as Chief Town Planner, Town planning Organization, Urban Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar .
2.The Addl. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.Shri M.S.Ahad, father's name not known to the petitioner, Retired as Associate Planner, Town Planning Organization, Urban Development Department, Bihar and resident of House No.2, Officers' Hostel, Birchand Patel Path, Patna (Now dead).
.... .... Respondents.
================================================== For the Petitioner/s :Mr. MANOJ PRIYADARSHI, Adv. For the Respondent/s :Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-I. ==================================================== HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY.
Shivaji Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Pandey,J State.
2.The grievances of the petitioner in the present case is that his date of promotion as Associate Town Planner be shifted from 7th January 1993 to 7th October 1976, he should be promoted on the substantive post of Town Planner with effect from 7th October 1983 and also his case should be considered to be promoted on the post of Chief Town Planner. In this case, the respondent no.3 was made party but during the pendency of the writ petition he died and ultimately no grievance can be made against respondent no.3. 2
3. The case of the petitioner is that he came to the Department in the year 1965 as a Town Planning Assistant, whereas respondent no.3 came as Assistant Engineer in 1967. The post of Town Planning Assistant is equivalent to the Assistant Engineer. It has further been submitted that the respondent no.3 was junior to the petitioner but was promoted to the post of Associate Town Planner in the year 1976 without being promoted to the post of Junior Town Planner as there is a post in between the Assistant Engineer vis-à-vis Associate Town Planner. Respondent no.3 was required to be promoted as Junior Town Planner only then to the post of Associate Town Planner and in this way respondent no.3 became senior to the petitioner by illegally getting promotion directly to the post f Associate Town Planner. Petitioner has grievance that although he came to the Department on earlier date, but he was deprived of the post of Associate Town Planner from due date and he should be given the said promotion at least from the date the respondent no.3 was so promoted. Further claim is that thereafter petitioner had officiated to the post of Town Planner but he was never promoted substantially whereas respondent no.3 who was junior to the petitioner was promoted as Town 3 Planner even after his retirement in the year 1996, vide Annexure-18 dated 13th Mach 1997 with effect from 8th October 1983 and, as such, petitioner is at least entitled to the post of Town Planner from the aforesaid date.
4. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit in this case stating therein that actual facts could not be ascertained due to lack of availability of records and the petitioner has already superannuated from service.
5. In this view of the matter, the case is remanded to the authority concerned who will pass appropriate order within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and it is expected that the petitioner will produce relevant documents in support of his claim. If the order is passed in favour of petitioner, then the petitioner will be entitled to revised scale of pay and accordingly his pay and retiral benefits will be fixed as per the revised scale.
6. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.
Patna High Court. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Dd. 16th Jan.2012. N.A.F.R./Jay/